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."
In the above article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist, it is stated that the observation made by Dr. Field about the children in Tertia informing that they are reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents stands invalid. Based on this the Dr. Karp concludes that interview-centered method that is currently being used in Tertia is a much more accurate in understanding of child-rearing traditions than observation-centered approach. However before evaluting this conlcusion three questions needed to be answered.
Firstly, what if the children are talking about their biological parents more in the interview because they are told to do so? One can always manipulate children as they are guileless and hence produce the intended results. For example they might be talking about their biological parents just as an obligation or maybe some instruction was given to them or perhaps they might be even saying it as the interviewer may have told them so solely to invalidate the observation-centered approach and as a result the argument does not hold water.
Secondly, what if the values they inherit are contradictory to their biological parents and more in accord with the other people of the village? This can be possible since the cultural aspect was not accounted for in the interview. For instance, they might be talking about their biological parents but the things they do, the food they eat and the culture they follow might be solely be influenced by other people of the village and because of this the arguments stands invalid.
Finally, does interviewing them give an accurate account as to what is happening in reality? It is possible they might be simply saying made-up things in the interview or whatever they are being told. For example as an analogy a famous actress going through depression would never admit it in an interview but if we observe her actions one can determine the disease she is suffering from. In this case also the same might be happening and so observation-based approach might be better suited to capture reality.
In conclusion, the argument that is stated is considerably flawed due to the following unwarranted assumptions and if the author can provide answers to the following three questions with sufficient evidence to back them up then it might be possible to evaluate validity of the proposed method.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 10 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 391 350
No. of Characters: 1960 1500
No. of Different Words: 188 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.447 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.013 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.99 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 144 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 71 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.929 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.387 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.35 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.604 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.093 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 467, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ons than observation-centered approach. However before evaluting this conlcusion three ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, as to, for example, for instance, in conclusion, talking about, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1998.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 391.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10997442455 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44676510885 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03059233441 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.49104859335 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 623.7 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 78.8232652385 57.8364921388 136% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.714285714 119.503703932 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.9285714286 23.324526521 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.7142857143 5.70786347227 205% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.175002668075 0.218282227539 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0711652070957 0.0743258471296 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.119361115389 0.0701772020484 170% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114213937893 0.128457276422 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.13177065334 0.0628817314937 210% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 14.3799401198 115% => 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: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.