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.
The article written by Dr. Karp concludes that the observation of Dr. Field on children of Tertia being reared by the whole village and not their own parents, is based on unwarranted approaches and the results of his study was incorrect. Karp evidences his argument with the interview he conducted recently with the children of Tertia. The author’s contention might be true, but there are three pieces of evidence he needs to provide to strengthen his persuasiveness.
First of all, Karp assumes that the interview he conducted recently with the children of Tertia were the same children Field observed. Perhaps, both the children were different. For instance, there could have been a major migration after teenage and the present-day children are different from what Field had observed. This might have resulted in the discrepancy which was found during the interview. Probably, the village of Tertia might have gotten mixed with people of other villages. This might have led to cross-marriage between the people of different villages, hence explaining the reason for the children’s attachment with parents. In addition, there might also be a chance that Karp interviewed the children of the neighboring village, who came for shelter in Tertia. Hence, there are various possibilities of the children not belonging to the native village. Thus, the writer should present evidences elucidating the authenticity of the children interviewed, whether they belonged traditionally to Tertia.
Secondly, the author is under assumption that interview-based approach is better that observation-based method. Perhaps, in reality, this may not be true. For example, interview-based observation might be influenced by personal grudges and vindictive nature of individuals. If this happens to be the case, the result of any observation, derived from interview-based method, is of questionable authenticity and believability. On the other hand, observational approach might be more believable because of the absence of personal animosity and thus could be neutral. Moreover, when studies are based on observation, it is easier to get an overall picture, but in the case of interview based approach, the study is restricted to the knowledge of the individuals being interviewed. Thus, Karp is compelled to provide evidences on what makes interview-based study better than observational approach.
In conclusion, in order to strengthen the claim of Karp that Dr. Field’s study of children in Tertia is fallacious, the above evidences are needed to be provided to assess the credibility of his (Karp) argument. Evidences pertaining to details of the children, Dr. Karp interviewed and what makes interview-based approach better, will help in assessing his argument better.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 423 350
No. of Characters: 2277 1500
No. of Different Words: 192 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.535 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.383 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.109 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 169 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 139 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 106 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 69 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.143 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.52 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.338 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.509 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.139 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, thus, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2349.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 423.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.55319148936 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53508145475 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22360168824 2.78398813304 116% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.486997635934 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 711.9 705.55239521 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.9118787421 57.8364921388 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.857142857 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1428571429 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.80952380952 5.70786347227 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => 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: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.205418703293 0.218282227539 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0683296456416 0.0743258471296 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0702979320637 0.0701772020484 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149224248942 0.128457276422 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0709077825317 0.0628817314937 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.91 12.5979740519 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.92 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 98.500998004 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.