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 examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
In the article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist, it is stated that the interview-centered method is a much more accurate method in understanding social traditions than the observation-centered method. The author asserts his conclusion based on his findings of child rearing in the island of tertia. However, the author supports his argument with three unstated assumptions that, if not substantiated, dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument.
First of all, the author assumes that the child rearing tradition in the island of tertia has remained unchanged in the last twenty years. However, this might not be the case. Perhaps, things have changed drastically in this twenty years. Twenty years is a long enough period for another generation of biological parents to come forward, and the new generation might have broken the age old tradition that once was dominate in this island. Is is also possible that due to some outside influence, the break in the cycle has occurred. In this present day, where technology is advancing in a rapid pace, and social interactions are increasing, it is very much possible that the island of tertia has been exposed to other societies and cultures, where the rearing of children is done by their biological parents rather than any outsider of the village. If either of these two scenarios is true, then the author’s conclusion about the interview-centered method being better than the observation-centered method is flawed and his assertion does not hold water.
Secondly, the author is assuming that the interview-centered method is verisimilitude to the actual environment the children are exposed to in their day to day life. However, this is a very strong assumption, and very likely to be wrong. It is possible that because the children were interviewed in a “LAB-LIKE” environment, they felt nervous, and gave answeres in the way the researchers wanted them to answer. Which can be deemed fabricated, and obscures the actual scenario. If this is proved true, then the validity of the author’s argument is surely damaged.
Finally, the author has assumed that because his results have been satisfactory in the island of tertia, it will hold ground in every other island cultures. But this may not necessarily be true. Perhaps, in other islands the observation-centered method will give results much more accurately. The author might not have enough “DATA POINTS” based on research of just one island to conclude this definitely. Again, in some islands the local population might not allow others to interview them. In that case, is there any better method other than observation? If this is true, then the author’s claim is not warranted.
In conclusion, it is possible that the interview-centered method is better than the observation-centered method. However, as it stands now, the argument relies on three unfounded assumptions that render its conclusion unpersuasive at best and specious at worst. Thus, the author needs to provide additional evidence to buttress his argument.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: God Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 486 350
No. of Characters: 2493 1500
No. of Different Words: 222 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.695 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.13 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.176 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 186 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 125 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 91 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.44 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.292 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.56 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.297 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.42 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.059 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 464, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ken the persuasiveness of the argument. First of all, the author assumes that th...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 416, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'dominated'.
Suggestion: dominated
...ken the age old tradition that once was dominate in this island. Is is also possible tha...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 441, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: Is
... that once was dominate in this island. Is is also possible that due to some outside ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, thus, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2586.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 486.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32098765432 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69525374022 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.29071984033 2.78398813304 118% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 204.123752495 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.473251028807 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 792.9 705.55239521 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 64.4333329884 57.8364921388 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.44 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.44 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.24 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
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: 0.158123713512 0.218282227539 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0402975343656 0.0743258471296 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.049453492017 0.0701772020484 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0929618989876 0.128457276422 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0726737108792 0.0628817314937 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.