10. 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.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
It is advised that in the future the research on Tertian child-rearing practices should be conducted via the interview-centered method. According to the article, the recommendation is based on Dr. Karp’s study on the islands. However, the reliability of Dr. Karp’s study has not be ensured yet by other relevant evidences. So, there are plenty of questions remained to be answered before make some effective advice.
Firstly, there are many differences between the studies of Dr. Field and Dr. Karp. On the one hand, Dr. Field’s study was conducted twenty years ago. Accounting of the development of the island, things may have changed since then. It was likely true that children in Tertia were reared by and entire village twenty years ago. But as time went by maybe their parents found it bad for their growth so that they have changed the rearing strategies. On the other hand, Dr. Field only studied the island of Tertia years ago, while Dr. Karp studies lots of other islands. Given the rare information on the samples’ numbers Dr. Karp has studied, it is difficult to draw a conclusion that he has conducted a comprehensive interview on the islands because of the potential disparities among the islands. In this case, Dr. Karp’s assertion on Dr. Field’s conclusion invalid might be untenable.
Secondly, the problems lie on Dr. Karp’s interviews. It was mentioned in the article that the interviews’ objects are mainly children. It should be explained more in details about the deep reasons on the choice of the objects. Children are a group of people growing in both their thoughts and their ability to articulation. So the information given by the children might be imprecise, which depends on the ages and health situation of the children. On the other hand, the children might have some prejudice when talking about their adoptive parents. To be more specific, they act like more intimate relationships with their biological parents because they hope to contact more with them. Hence, the authenticity of the children’s answers remains to be discussed more.
Thirdly, how significant is the word 'some' in relation to the number of the anthropologists suggesting the idea of using the interview-centered approach? It may be possible that, the number is not significant at all; alternatively, the number of anthropologists advocating the other method may be greater. Just from the suggestions of few, an all-encompassing generalization doesn't sound too convincing.
No matter which scientist is correct, there is no reason to limit scientific studies in the future to only one type of test. There could be a third method of study that is more effective than the ones used to date, or the combination could complement each other and eliminate inconsistencies in the data.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 14 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 457 350
No. of Characters: 2271 1500
No. of Different Words: 229 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.624 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.969 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.966 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 157 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 123 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.28 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.252 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.52 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.279 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.279 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.1 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 280, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...reliability of Dr. Karp’s study has not be ensured yet by other relevant evidences...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, while, talking about, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2003.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 396.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.05808080808 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46091344257 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85527679945 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.515151515152 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 603.0 705.55239521 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.6411119095 57.8364921388 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.0454545455 119.503703932 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.45454545455 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.205318866877 0.218282227539 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0666259228107 0.0743258471296 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0771924904898 0.0701772020484 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112047186963 0.128457276422 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0899072361378 0.0628817314937 143% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.77 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.