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.
The argument presented by the author concluding that the interview-centered method will establish a more accurate understanding of child rearing traditions in tertia and other island is not entirely convincing. This argument need further evidences to reach to the drawn conclusion.
Firstly, the author need to consider what type of question being asked to the children. The response given by the children will be entirely dependent on the questionnaire given to them. The author need to consider the evidence that these questions which are asked to the children's are sufficient to solicit the information which can lead to the conclusion drawn.
Similarly, the author must consider the age of the children. It may happen that upto certain age the children are with their biological parents, which means the role of the village has still not started. In this case the conclusion drawn by Dr. Field cannot be neglected easily. Author should evaluate evidences for age group which Dr. Field has considered.
Also, the author states that by the method of the interview will bring clarity on all the traditional practices and we can establish more accurate understanding of tertia and other island cultures. But this need strong evidence that the culture remains same through out the tertia and other islands. It may happen the practices change significantly within village. By such evidence, it will be easy to conclude about the tradition through out the village and other island cultures.
Apart from that, the author need to consider the evidence that the method of interview is unobstructed by the language difference and the data collected is not misinterpreted. If it is not understood properly then the author conclusion will be faulty and weaken.
Ultimately, from the above arguments, we can conclude that the author argument in present state is insufficient and not entirely convincing. This can be strengthened by providing the above discussed evidences, and which can lead to better understanding of the tradition in Tertia village and nearby island cultures.
Sentence: This argument need further evidences to reach to the drawn conclusion.
Description: The fragment argument need further is rare
Suggestion: Possible agreement error: Replace need with verb, past tense
Sentence: But this need strong evidence that the culture remains same through out the tertia and other islands.
Description: A noun, singular, common is not usually followed by an adjective
Suggestion: Refer to need and strong
Our arguments:
1. The first piece of evidence that we would need in order to evaluate Dr. Karp’s claims is information about whether or not Tertia and the surrounding island group have changed significantly in the past 20 years. (You have: reason 3, reason 4)
2. Another piece of evidence that might help us evaluate this claim involves the exact locations where Dr. Karp’s interviews took place. (you don't have)
3. In order to fully evaluate this article, we would also need to learn more about the interview questions that Dr. Karp’s team used. What exactly did they ask? We don’t know. (You have: reason 1 and reason 2)
4. Cast doubt: The conclusion that interview-centered methods are inherently more valid than observational-centered approaches. (you don't have)
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 330 350
No. of Characters: 1709 1500
No. of Different Words: 149 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.262 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.179 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.841 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 128 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 95 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.412 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.468 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.471 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.355 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.637 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.134 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5