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

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.
【满分范文赏析】
It might seem logical, at first glance, to agree with the argument in Dr. Karp’s article that children in Tertia are actually raised by their biological parents (and perhaps even, by implication, that an observation-centered approach to anthropological study is less valid than an interview-centered one). However, in order to fully evaluate this argument, an audience should be provided with additional evidence.
【本段结构】本段采用了简明的Argument开头段结构,即C—F的开头结构。段落首先概括原文的Conclusion,接下来给出开头段到正文段的过渡句,指出原文的Flaw,即其应提供额外的Evidence才能让观众对该Argument进行充分评价。
【本段功能】本段作为Argument开头段,具体功能就在于发起攻击并概括原文的结论,即Tertia的孩子们的确是由他们的亲生父母所抚养的,并且以观察为中心的人类学研究方法不如以面试为中心的研究方法有效。本段对原文结论的归纳为正文段中即将进行的具体攻击作铺垫。
The audience should know, before deciding conclusively about the appropriate methodology for further study, if Tertia has changed significantly in the past 20 years. Dr. Field conducted his observational study 20 years ago and it is possible that Tertia has changed significantly since then. For example, if we had evidence suggesting that, since the original study, foreigners had settled on the island and introduced a new element that affected child rearing in Tertia, it would certainly weaken Dr. Karp’s argument. In that case, the original study could have been accurate and Dr. Karp’s study could be correct.
新GRE作文Argument部分范文解析之子女抚养问题图2
【本段结构】本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构,即:概括第一个逻辑错误的错误类型和其在原文中出现的位置,接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。
【本段功能】本段作为正文第一段,攻击原文中出现的第一个重要逻辑错误——(时间上的)错误类比。在对合适的研究方法做出决定性的判断之前,观众应当被告知Tertia是否在过去的20年内发生了显著的变化。Field博士是在20年前开展了他的观察性研究,而自那时起Tertia可能发生了显著的变化。例如,我们如果有证据证明后来外国人在岛上定居并引入了一种影响了Tertia的孩子抚养方式的新因素,Karp博士的论证无疑会被削弱。在这种情形下,Field博士原先的研究可能是准确的,Karp博士的研究也可能是正确的。
Further, in order to fully evaluate this claim the audience needs to learn more about the interview questions that Dr. Karp’s team used—what exactly did they ask? We don’t know, nor do we know what the children’s responses actually were. What did they say about their biological parents? The mere fact that they speak more frequently about their biological parents than they do about other adults does not mean that their biological parents had a greater role than the community did in their rearing. It would significantly undermine Dr. Karp’s argument if it turned out that the children said things like how much they missed their parents or how their parents had left them in a communal environment. Without knowing what the children said, one cannot accept the argument above without reservations.
【本段结构】本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构,即:概括第三个逻辑错误的错误类型和其在原文中出现的位置,接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。
【本段功能】本段作为正文第三段,攻击原文中出现的第三个重要逻辑错误——调查类错误。为充分评价原文中的论断,观众需要就Karp博士所采用的面试问题获得更多的信息。我们既不知道他们所问问题的具体内容,也不知道孩子们的具体答案。仅仅是孩子们更经常谈到他们的亲生父母这一事实并不意味着他们的亲生父母在抚养他们的过程中比社区占有更主要的角色。如果事实证明孩子们经常说一些诸如他们多么想念父母或者他们的父母是如何把他们留在了一个集体环境中的事情的话,Karp博士的论证将被显著地削弱。在不知道孩子们究竟说了些什么的情况下,我们不能无保留地接受原文的论证。
It is slightly more difficult to discuss the evidence we might need in order to evaluate the more interesting claims in Dr. Karp’s article, namely his extension of the results of his study to a conclusion that interview-centered methods are inherently more valid than observational-centered approaches in the case of study in the group of islands including Tertia. In order to fully evaluate this claim one would require more examples of interview-based and observation-based anthropological studies and we would also need to look into different study designs. Perhaps Dr. Field did not conduct an effective observational study, but other observational approaches could be effective. In order to make such grandiose claims, Dr. Karp really needs to provide a lot of additional evidence (ideally a meta-analysis of hundreds of anthropological studies).

Votes
Average: 6.6 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, look, really, so, then, for example, talking about

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 51.0 33.0505617978 154% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 75.0 58.6224719101 128% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 5745.0 2235.4752809 257% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 565.0 442.535393258 128% => OK
Chars per words: 10.1681415929 5.05705443957 201% => Less chars per word wanted.
Fourth root words length: 4.87542086881 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 48.9546309357 2.79657885939 1751% => Word_Length_SD is high.
Unique words: 273.0 215.323595506 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.483185840708 0.4932671777 98% => OK
syllable_count: 981.0 704.065955056 139% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 12.0 4.38483146067 274% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 342.245646641 60.3974514979 567% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 261.136363636 118.986275619 219% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 25.6818181818 23.4991977007 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.13636363636 5.21951772744 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 13.0 4.97078651685 262% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.83258426966 248% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.399196470842 0.243740707755 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.141980873091 0.0831039109588 171% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.158286578914 0.0758088955206 209% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119387755764 0.150359130593 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.155743882297 0.0667264976115 233% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 39.3 14.1392134831 278% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.8420337079 77% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 42.0 12.1639044944 345% => Coleman_liau_index is high.
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.82 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 141.0 100.480337079 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.

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.