1.1. 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.
At this note, Dr. Krap compares the result of his current study with the study conducted by Dr. Field, and propounds that the implemented method of study by Dr. Field, observation-based, is not accurate one for anthropology studies; in addition, his used method which is interview-centered presents the most accurate information in this field. This acclaim cannot be accepted as it stands since it relies on the series of surmises, all of which are challengeable and require further clue and evidence for their verification. The following paragraphs will list these challenges and pieces of evidence.
The first issue with this comparison is the varied study condition, the first varied condition is the scope of study considered by two professors. While Dr. Field merely focused on Tertia island, the study area in Dr. Krap research is wider and includes a list of islands and Tertia island. Therefore, the comparison has not had an identical study scope, and there is the possibility of the deviation of result in the study done by Dr. Krap. For instance, that list contains lots of populated islands in which parents directly are responsible of babysitting and it is in contrast of prevalent child rearing system in Teria island; however, since the majority of samples’ rearing system is direct kid sitting by parents, the ultimate result shows the average which is inclined to the majority. Another issue with the note is the 20 years difference between the two studies. Dr. Krap considered the conditions and rearing culture have stayed stable during this period. However, there is a probability of the fluctuation and variation of the system. For example, during these 20 years, the children who were the case studies by Dr. Field have become an adult and parents, and according to their previous child-parent relationship, they prefer to rear their kids directly without the participation of others. Consequently, the missing evidence for this part of the note is a clue for the similarity of the studies islands with Tertia about the parenting; furthermore, a clue that situation during the past twenty years was stable. Otherwise, this comparison is shaky.
The second problem with the note is the clarification of the observation-based study as an unsuitable and inaccurate method of study. Even with consideration of Dr. Field study’s falsehood, the overgeneralization of one error to the entire system and method is not logic. Maybe, the mistake of the method at Dr. Field study was for the sake of his fallacious implementation; for example, observing the specified rage range or region in the island which is not an exact indicator of the entire population in the island. Therefore, this generalization is not a logic action. However, it could be accepted if Dr. Krap gives clue by listing the other researches which use the observation-based method and conducted the wrong result, in a case which the number of failing by this method was higher than half of the entire studies using the observation method; moreover, there was no mistake with the implementation of method, this surmise would be verified.
Finally, the last issue with the note is the last part of it which Dr. Krap believes his students will depict the most accurate data about the parenting system of Tertia island by the interview-centered study. This hypothesis is skeptical since there are two missing clues. First of all, evidence about the participation of entire case studies, since there is a possibility of the shyness or introverted kids in the study sample who are not participate in the study. The second missing clue is the level of expertness of the students at the usage of this method. Since they do not have sufficient experience and knowledge over this kind of study as does Dr. Field.
To wrap it up, all the mentioned missing clues and evidence depict the flaw of this note and the requirement of the further explanation for its verification
- It is better for children to choose jobs that are similar to their parent's jobs than to choose jobs that very different from their parent's job. 70
- ets.test 1 86
- tpo42 73
- Young people should be encouraged to pursue long-term, realistic goals rather than seek immediate fame and recognition. 16
- Last year the number of students who enrolled in online degree programs offered by nearby Omni University increased by 50 percent. During the same year, Omni showed a significant decrease from prior years in expenditures for dormitory and classroom space, 85
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 652, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
...Dr. Krap gives clue by listing the other researches which use the observation-bas...
Line 4, column 441, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'participated'.
...ed kids in the study sample who are not participate in the study. The second missing clue i...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, therefore, while, as for, for example, for instance, in addition, in contrast, kind of, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 94.0 55.5748502994 169% => OK
Nominalization: 32.0 16.3942115768 195% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3309.0 2260.96107784 146% => OK
No of words: 651.0 441.139720559 148% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08294930876 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.05120793913 4.56307096286 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02600762405 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 274.0 204.123752495 134% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.42089093702 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1035.9 705.55239521 147% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 94.5118213506 57.8364921388 163% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.875 119.503703932 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.125 23.324526521 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.625 5.70786347227 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => 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 : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.20960937756 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0643344452577 0.0743258471296 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0622787851877 0.0701772020484 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115832883176 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0606540334645 0.0628817314937 96% => OK
automated_readability_index: 16.1 14.3799401198 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.86 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 160.0 98.500998004 162% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 651 350
No. of Characters: 3227 1500
No. of Different Words: 253 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.051 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.957 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.918 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 219 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 157 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 111 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 79 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.125 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 15.412 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.302 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.302 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.036 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5