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 line 5 10 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
In the study of Dr. Field, through the observation method, he stated that the children in Tertia were raised by the communal efforts of the entire village rather than biological parents. However, Dr. Karp, through his interview centered method, believed the former statement was inaccurate. There are many assumptions were made by Dr. Karp in the effort to refute Dr. Field's conclusion.
First, the interviews made by Dr. Karp's team indicate a high return on the topics regarding their biological parents by the children in Tertia. We cannot assume this with the important role of their parents in their upbringing. The topics of what the children talking about their parents were not disclosed in the research. They can talk about anything and it would mean totally different things whether negative or positive effects of their parents in their lives. If the children keep mentioning that they really miss their mother and father because they rarely meet them, it would weaken the conclusion made by Dr. Karp. Therefore, the topics made by the children would decide which role their parents play in their development.
Secondly, the sample pool o the interview over the population of children in Tertia will define how trustworthy Dr. Karp's research would be. If he only managed to interview 20-100 children over more than a thousand in Tertia, the sample pool is too small to make any solid statement. If only 1 percent of the children say that their parents always take care of them, we cannot generalize for the rest of the population in Tertia that other children experience the same thing. Therefore, we need to know how many interviews were made in Dr. Karp's studies to support his statement.
Additionally, the he difference between the current situation versus the situation of twenty years ago would drastically weaken the statement made by Dr. Karp. For example, twenty year ago when Dr. Field made the research, a lot of the young parents could not find a jobs in Tertia so they need to seek for employment in other places, this would cause the children to left behind with their grand parents and other close relatives. However, Tertia now has become a more developed place which attracts more businesses to set their offices here. As a result, there are more jobs available to people to choose from and they do not need to leave their hometowns. Therefore, children in Tertia today can stay with their biological parents. The era difference would probably the main factors to disqualify Dr. Karp's conclusion in order to invalidate Dr. Field's study.
In short, there are many flaws in the assumption from the article by Dr. Karp that would need more clarifications to disqualify the study of Dr. Field's about the role of the biological parents on the children in Tertia.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 468 350
No. of Characters: 2280 1500
No. of Different Words: 211 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.651 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.872 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.47 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 163 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.4 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.167 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.377 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.558 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.178 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 15, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'he'?
Suggestion: the; he
...upport his statement. Additionally, the he difference between the current situatio...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 22, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'differences'.
Suggestion: differences
...his statement. Additionally, the he difference between the current situation versus th...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 266, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a job' or simply 'jobs'?
Suggestion: a job; jobs
...lot of the young parents could not find a jobs in Tertia so they need to seek for empl...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, really, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, for example, in fact, in short, talking about, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.6327345309 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2329.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 468.0 441.139720559 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.9764957265 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65116196802 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54676026295 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.461538461538 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 694.8 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.8387656613 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.45 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5 5.70786347227 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => 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: 0.237801297036 0.218282227539 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0919860446952 0.0743258471296 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0635115668284 0.0701772020484 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.173890105397 0.128457276422 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0631755424424 0.0628817314937 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.3799401198 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.9 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.65 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.