Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia. Using an observation-centered approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. Recently another anthropologist, Dr. Karp, visited the group of islands that includes Tertia and used the interview-centered method to study child-rearing practices. In the interviews that Dr. Karp conducted with children living in this group of islands, the children spent much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. Dr. Karp decided that Dr. Field’s conclusion about Tertian village culture must be invalid. Some anthropologists recommend that to obtain accurate information on Tertian child-rearing practices, future research on the subject should be conducted via the interview-centered method.
The writer of this analytical piece has drawn an optimistic conclusion, from disjointed and incomplete data, that to obtain accurate information on Tertian child-rearing practices, a future researcher should conduct the study through an interview-centered method.
In the given argument, a significant lacuna is an unjustified assumption that the present situation on the island of Tertia is the same as twenty years ago. The way of parenting likely changed in the last twenty years, and people of Tertia adopted the new way. Hence, when Dr. Field visited the island, children were reared by an entire village, but now maybe children are raising by their biological parents. So, it is not feasible to conclude that Dr. Filed's theory and conclusion about Tertian village is invalid. Moreover, it would be unreasonable to assume that Dr. Karp's and Dr. Field's target audience is the same. Because in the argument, there is no evidence presented which concludes that both anthropologist's audience is of the same group. Maybe the island is vast, and there are many different types of culture peoples living. Thus, if both anthropologists evaluated different types of culture's people, then both are correct in their ways. Therefore the assumption that future anthropologists should conduct research based on the interview-centered method proves unwarranted.
Another gap is that the writer unfairly assumes that if the children spent more time talking about their biological parents suggests they raised by their biological parents. It is highly probable that children never know about their biological parents, and that is the reason they talk about them as they want to know more about their biological parents. Moreover, the writer does not present which questions asked to the child during the interview. At the same time, it is highly probable that children could not understand Dr. Karp's language and responded incorrectly. Consequently, Dr. Field prefers the observation method rather than questioning, which may imply that peoples of the Tertia are not able to understand the outsider language. Thus, the assertion made by Dr. Karp regarding Dr. Field's conclusion falls apart. Also, the writer's recommendations regarding the interview-centered method do not hold.
All things considering, it may be said that the writer has failed to make a convincing argument because of the complete absence of the evidence needed. There are questions regarding Dr. Field's and Dr. Karp's study group, language used by the Tertian people, and changes done since the last twenty years at Tertian island need to be answered to make the argument more promising. However, no convincing reasoning is given. The argument ends with an entirely optimistic conclusion based on the wishy-washy observations that are likely to be incorrect.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 441 350
No. of Characters: 2335 1500
No. of Different Words: 210 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.583 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.295 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.947 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 180 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 132 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.801 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.3 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.461 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.097 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 704, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'anthropologists'' or 'anthropologist's'?
Suggestion: anthropologists'; anthropologist's
...nce presented which concludes that both anthropologists audience is of the same group. Maybe th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 791, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
...Maybe the island is vast, and there are many different types of culture peoples living. Thus, ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 952, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...e, then both are correct in their ways. Therefore the assumption that future anthropologi...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, hence, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, so, then, therefore, thus, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2383.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 441.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.40362811791 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58257569496 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99111107123 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.492063492063 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 720.0 705.55239521 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.5810109214 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.476190476 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.28571428571 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.67664670659 278% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.320987956776 0.218282227539 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0826096377432 0.0743258471296 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0719183572458 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.180558185848 0.128457276422 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0725449885613 0.0628817314937 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.04 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 98.500998004 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.