The following appeared on the Website Science News Today.
"In a recent survey of more than 5,000 adolescents, the teens who reported eating the most meals with their families were the least likely to use illegal drugs, tobacco, or alcohol. Family meals were also associated with higher grades, better self-esteem, and lower rates of depression. Almost 30 percent of the teens said they ate at least seven meals per week with their families. Clearly, having a high number of family meals keeps teens from engaging in bad behaviors."
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can
plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
The argument that having a high number of family meals keeps teens from engaging in bad behaviors makes a number of unwarranted assumptions that needs examination. Taken as a whole, these unstated assumptions make the argument highly suspect. Indeed, if these assumptions does not hold true, the argument totally falls apart.
The major leap in the argument is the assumption that having high number of family meals keeps teens from engaging in bad behaviours. It fails to account for teens behaviour for the rest of the day when these teens are not with their families. Most bad habits such as the use of illegal drugs, tobacco, among others are done with peers and not with families. Most people tend to put up their best behavior at a family gathering, either during a dinner or a family party. Thus, the assumption that having family meals leads to the procreation of well-behaved teens is seriously flawed.
Another leap in the argument is the weak basis of the survey carried out. The survey only include over 5,000 adolescents and it is thus believed that these 5,000 adolescents represents the adolescent everywhere. Also, the argument never state where the survey was carried out. Was the survey carried out in only one location or in several location? If this 5,000 adolescents reside in one region, then, the conclusion that having a high number of meals with the family might seem valid for only that region.
Finally, the argument assumes people with higher grades, better self-esteem and lower rates of depression are as a result of family meals. There is no correlation between having family meals and having high grades, better esteem or lower rates of depression. Teens neither study with their family while having dinner together with their family, nor do they exhibit most of their behaviors when they are with their families. Thus, saying having high grades, good behaviour and lower depression rate as a result of family meals does not seem valid.
However, to strengthen the argument, the author needs to provides what the sampled teens do when they are not with their families. It is what these teens do in the absence of their families or when they are with their friends that determine whether they engage in bad behavior or not. More so, the survey needs to be carried out in different locations with larger samples of teens. Assuming the study of over 5,000 teens behavior represents the behavior of all teens as a whole seems invalid. Lastly, the argument need to examine the other activities scholars and well-behaved individual do apart from family meals.
In conclusion, the argument that good behaviors in teens is related to having meals often with family members makes numerous unstated assumptions that seriously weaken its validity. Unless these assumptions are addressed, the argument totally falls apart. Thus, having family meal might even have less impact on a teen’s behaviour as such teen is engaged in several activities when he or she is not with the family and it is these activities that determine how well-behaved or bad-behaved such student is.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 515 350
No. of Characters: 2525 1500
No. of Different Words: 205 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.764 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.903 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.44 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 178 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.6 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.127 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.56 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.334 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.567 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.114 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 332, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun location seems to be countable; consider using: 'several locations'.
Suggestion: several locations
... carried out in only one location or in several location? If this 5,000 adolescents reside in on...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 58, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'provide'.
Suggestion: provide
...gthen the argument, the author needs to provides what the sampled teens do when they are...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, however, if, lastly, so, then, thus, well, while, apart from, in conclusion, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.9520958084 23% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2595.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 515.0 441.139720559 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03883495146 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.763781212 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50823885145 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.41359223301 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 790.2 705.55239521 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.0112179775 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.8 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.48 5.70786347227 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 6.88822355289 232% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.253010749157 0.218282227539 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0830070353534 0.0743258471296 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0483951100998 0.0701772020484 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.150775531638 0.128457276422 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0555901877238 0.0628817314937 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.51 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.