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 tha

Essay topics:

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.

While the author was able to lead a research team to interview the same tribe as the original anthropologist, the argument that Dr. Karp makes does not make a cogent case on why Dr. Field’s methods are invalid. It is easy to understand why Dr. Karp would view their process as accurate, but this argument is riddled with holes and assumptions, thus is not strong o make the conclusion that Dr. Karp’s interviewed-based method is better than Dr. Fields observation-based approach.

First, Dr. Karp makes the assumption that because the children talked about their biological parents more than the tribe during their “interview-based” approach, does not mean that children weren’t reared by the tribe. Children naturally connect with their biological parents due to familiarity, smells and or emotional connections which drives a yearn to be near family leading the children to talk more of their parents rather than the tribe-child relationship. As soon as the s the interviews ended, the children could have gone and interacted with the tribe people as viewed by Dr. Fields observations. The phrase, “actions speak louder than words” can tell the deeper wants, needs and desires of people in which words can not. Unless the people of the tribe explicitly say that either they or the biological parents rear for the children, we can not assume that based on interviews that the parents are the main provers.

Additionally, the author gives no background, statistics notes from their research nor from Dr. Field’s approach or how each was conducted. Dr. Karp’s interview-based approach could have had questions only pertaining to how the children interacted with the parents and could have not inquired about the relationship between the children and the tribe. Dr. Field could have observed the tribe during the day where the tribe interacts with the children more rather than at night where the children maybe with the biological parents. Explaining the process and contents of the interviews would have strengthened the author's argument that their approach was better but the way in which Dr. Karp argues, the assumption does not carry the weight that their approach is a more accurate approach.

Furthermore, Dr. Karp assumes there were not any misunderstandings or mistakes when conducting the interviews. The team was made of graduate students, who could have possibly phrased the questions awkwardly, used language that may have been confusing to the tribespeople or the possibility of translation issues. Dr. Karp assumes that there was smooth communication during the interviews when quite possibly could have been confusion between the interviewees and the interviewers. No one can verify the mistakes and misunderstandings that could have occurred in the process which most people will not admit to mistakes being made and due to the issue of transparency, the argument the author makes is weak.

It is wonderful that these people were able to observe the tribe to have a deeper understanding of how they function and that it should be continued into the future. But the argument that the author’s approach is valid when compared to the original anthropologist is not likely to persuade others due to the assumptions made by Dr. Karp.

Votes
Average: 6.9 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 346, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...d or emotional connections which drives a yearn to be near family leading the children ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 614, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... interviews would have strengthened the authors argument that their approach was better...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 611, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'mistake'.
Suggestion: mistake
...ess which most people will not admit to mistakes being made and due to the issue of tran...
^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, if, may, so, then, thus, while

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 25.0 13.6137724551 184% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2753.0 2260.96107784 122% => OK
No of words: 525.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24380952381 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78673985869 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02149517732 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.44380952381 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 791.1 705.55239521 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => 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: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 44.6259347067 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 161.941176471 119.503703932 136% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.8823529412 23.324526521 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.23529411765 5.70786347227 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.15983964651 0.218282227539 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0676704356363 0.0743258471296 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.043918252512 0.0701772020484 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105710386301 0.128457276422 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0386936450623 0.0628817314937 62% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.7 14.3799401198 130% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.49 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 12.3882235529 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 11 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 526 350
No. of Characters: 2677 1500
No. of Different Words: 225 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.789 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.089 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.87 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 177 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 133 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 106 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30.941 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.518 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.412 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.383 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.61 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.127 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5