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."
The assumptions of Dr. Karp, an anthropologist are written in his memo about the past survey was false and his team of graduated students can gain accurate understanding of child-rearing in the island with the interview approach. The author ignored important information and some question should be answered in order to decide the recommendation is likely to have predicted results.
The first question should be answered that whether all conditions in this island was stable during twenty years. It is quite possible that Dr. Field’s conclusion at that time, while changing condition during these years lead to Dr. Karp acquire different result. For example, residents in Tertia have more responsible for rearing each other children in twenty years ago, while some conflicts cause they pay more attention on their family. Without considering this possible scenario, the author cannot justifiably conclude that a survey, which Dr. Field did, is false.
Second, the author relies on the fact that speaking more about parents is an indication children was reared by parents. However, it is not necessarily the case. Parents may teach some important traditional to the children, which affect them significantly, while children spend much time with other resident in this island.
In the third place, base on the fact that interviews can results accurate information, the author infers that a team of graduated students will establish a much more accurate understanding of the matter. The interview may is best procedure in this matter, while a graduated students might have not enough experience to use this approach. In addition, students can not speak with the native language and they misinterpret of residents’ answers, which affect the survey negatively. Since, the author ignore this effective factors, his conclusion can not be acceptable.
In sum, the argument is flawed rationally and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument the author must provide clear guarantees that graduated students can gain better results. In order to evaluate the recommendation, we would need more information about the condition of Tertia during twenty years ago.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...is likely to have predicted results. The first question should be answered that ...
^^^
Line 7, column 223, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[4]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'is the best'.
Suggestion: is the best
...anding of the matter. The interview may is best procedure in this matter, while a gradu...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'third', 'while', 'for example', 'in addition', 'in the third place']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.266318537859 0.25644967241 104% => OK
Verbs: 0.135770234987 0.15541462614 87% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0939947780679 0.0836205057962 112% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0469973890339 0.0520304965353 90% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0287206266319 0.0272364105082 105% => OK
Prepositions: 0.127937336815 0.125424944231 102% => OK
Participles: 0.0261096605744 0.0416121511921 63% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.93027723195 2.79052419416 105% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0182767624021 0.026700313972 68% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.114882506527 0.113004496875 102% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0365535248042 0.0255425247493 143% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0104438642298 0.0127820249294 82% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2194.0 2731.13054187 80% => OK
No of words: 339.0 446.07635468 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.47197640118 6.12365571057 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29091512845 4.57801047555 94% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.421828908555 0.378187486979 112% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.309734513274 0.287650121315 108% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.256637168142 0.208842608468 123% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.162241887906 0.135150697306 120% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93027723195 2.79052419416 105% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 207.018472906 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.533923303835 0.469332199767 114% => OK
Word variations: 56.9543590585 52.1807786196 109% => OK
How many sentences: 16.0 20.039408867 80% => OK
Sentence length: 21.1875 23.2022227129 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.7136724057 57.7814097925 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.125 141.986410481 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1875 23.2022227129 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.8125 0.724660767414 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 52.1609513274 51.9672348444 100% => OK
Elegance: 1.98765432099 1.8405768891 108% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.356537252237 0.441005458295 81% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0846230133601 0.135418324435 62% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0582287778884 0.0829849096947 70% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.563389307962 0.58762219726 96% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.110134927026 0.147661913831 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.13169872224 0.193483328276 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0691576947266 0.0970749176394 71% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.297917969192 0.42659136922 70% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0746909160685 0.0774707102158 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.225676378223 0.312017818177 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0468030632691 0.0698173142475 67% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
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: This is not the final score. 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.