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.
While it might be true that Dr. Field's study about children in Tertia village was not as accurate as recent research done by recent anthtopologist ; however, the author's argument does not make a cogent sense. It is easy to understand that interview-centered method might be more accurate than just an observation method, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions therefor, not strong enough to make a conclusion about these two research methods accuracy.
The author indicates that Dr. Field's conclusion about cultural research in island of Tertia from twenty years ago compared to recent cultural study is not valid because of different results. However the author does not provide any information about changes in island of Tertia during last twenty years which is an important aspect. For example, families might have less children compared to twenty years ago. As a result, families have more time to spend with their own children and raise them. On the other hand, there is a possibility that due to adaption to tecnology such as internet children have less time to spend with other adults compared to twenty years ago.
Additionally, the author implies that the recent interview-centered method is more valid than twenty years ago observation method which does not make sense. There is no explanation about interview questions details which is important to clarify. There could be yes and no questions or short answer questions that make a different perspective. Moreover, the author does not mention about sample group in the recent and old cultural studies. For example, the sample group for old research could be bigger than recent research which indicates that these two studies can not be compared.
The author mentions that the recent study has beed done by team of graduate students which makes a different story. There is no gaurantee if graduate students know their jobs accurately or not. They might just be overwhelmed with lot of projects to do that can result in not accurate research results.
This suggestions is persuasive when the author gathers information about old and recent cutural researches and population differences and similarities. After answering these questions, the author can make such a conclusion.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 11 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 10 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 362 350
No. of Characters: 1857 1500
No. of Different Words: 162 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.362 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.13 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.72 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 137 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 96 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.294 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.202 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.529 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.36 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.36 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.128 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 163, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...by recent anthtopologist ; however, the authors argument does not make a cogent sense. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 192, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...not valid because of different results. However the author does not provide any informa...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 366, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun children is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...spect. For example, families might have less children compared to twenty years ago. ...
^^^^
Line 2, column 670, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...er adults compared to twenty years ago. Additionally, the author implies that th...
^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: These
...ult in not accurate research results. This suggestions is persuasive when the auth...
^^^^
Line 5, column 18, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[4]
Message: You should probably use: 'are'.
Suggestion: are
...te research results. This suggestions is persuasive when the author gathers info...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, moreover, while, for example, such as, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 55.5748502994 68% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1890.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 362.0 441.139720559 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22099447514 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36191444098 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77961569019 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 204.123752495 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.455801104972 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 578.7 705.55239521 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.3562764229 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.176470588 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2941176471 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.11764705882 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.135324102367 0.218282227539 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0467004621351 0.0743258471296 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0614318942557 0.0701772020484 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0715033973575 0.128457276422 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0837788113344 0.0628817314937 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 12.3882235529 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 11.9071856287 160% => 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.