The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist.
"Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and
concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village
rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with children
living in the group of islands that includes Tertia show that these children spend much more
time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. This
research of mine proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is invalid
and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid as well. The
interview-centered method that my team of graduate students is currently using in Tertia will
establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other
island cultures."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the
argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
Dr. Karp is presenting his findings in a certain region named Tertia and at the same time comparing with the finding by Dr. Field about the same topic. The argument needs to be evaluated carefully by considering different aspects in it.
There is a difference of 20 years between two studies conducted on the same topic and that too in the same region. This is a long amount of time in which the mindset of the children may have changed drastically. The children at that time are matured adults now. Dr. Karp’s findings contradict with that of Dr. Field’s. The method of evaluation is completely different used by both and comparing the results based on these don’t seem convincing. Dr.Karp has used the method of interviewing the children. The children are immature at their age and the feedback presented by them may not necessarily be reliable and consistent. Also, talking to their parents does not necessarily reflect that they have been completely reared by the parents and without any influence by the adults of the village. And further no strong data supporting the interview is presented by Dr. Karp. This creates ambiguity in concluding which method is better among the two.
Also, Dr. Karp is directly criticizing Dr. Field about the findings he made two decades ago. Dr.Karp is stating adamantly that his method is superior without presenting supporting facts and figures. Just because his team consists graduates does not necessarily mean that his findings are accurate. Openly criticizing someone else’s finding is not at all professional.
In the end, it is unfair to term the interview based finding to be superior without any concrete evidence from Dr.Karp’s side. At the same time, Dr.Field’s findings cannot be ruled out that easily without considering the whole process of observation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 464, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Karp
...on these don't seem convincing. Dr.Karp has used the method of interviewing the...
^^^^
Line 5, column 97, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Karp
...he findings he made two decades ago. Dr.Karp is stating adamantly that his method is...
^^^^
Line 6, column 115, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Karp&apos
...r without any concrete evidence from Dr.Karp's side. At the same time, Dr.Field&apos...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 154, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Field&apos
....Karp's side. At the same time, Dr.Field's findings cannot be ruled out that eas...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, may, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.9520958084 23% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 16.3942115768 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1547.0 2260.96107784 68% => OK
No of words: 298.0 441.139720559 68% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19127516779 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15483772266 4.56307096286 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90117119256 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 204.123752495 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.523489932886 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 468.9 705.55239521 66% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.9256949807 57.8364921388 55% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 85.9444444444 119.503703932 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.5555555556 23.324526521 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.944444444444 5.70786347227 17% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.197536685907 0.218282227539 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0707257508691 0.0743258471296 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0644374222918 0.0701772020484 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135010734365 0.128457276422 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0122059459582 0.0628817314937 19% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.