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.
The argument that Dr. Field's conclusion about the Tertian village culture is invalid and that the interview-centered method is much more accurate is not entirely logically convincing, as it ignores some certain crucial assumptions.
Firstly, the argument assumes that since children spend more time talking about their biological parents than other adults, then they must have been reared by their own biological parents and not the entire village. This does not completely imply that the children are not been reared by the village, since in fact a child living far away from home may still spend more time talking about his parents than those he stays with.
Secondly, the argument assumes that the interview-centered approach is much more valid than the observation-centered approach, but it fails to tell us what kind of questions where asked during the interview with the children. Besides, how are we sure this method does not ask more questions about the childrens biological parents than other adults.
Thirdly, since the interview included children from other islands, how are sure that the children from Tertian village were not reluctant to answer the interviewers, or what if most of them ran away or scared while the interviewers approached. Which may have caused the result of the interview to include more of the opinion of other villages than that of Tertia.
Hence, the argument is not entirely logically sound. Since the evidence supporting that interview-centered appoach is more accurate than the observation-centered method, and that Dr. Field's observation is wrong is not sufficient to prove the conclusion, as it does not address the assumptions already raised.
Ultimately, the argument would have been strengthened if the author could have shown what the interview questions looked like, if the children from Tertia were not reluctant to being interviewed and if the number of children from Tertia have significant input in the outcome of the interview-centered approach.
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 244, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Which” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ared while the interviewers approached. Which may have caused the result of the inter...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 268, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... to prove the conclusion, as it does not address the assumptions already raised. ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, first, firstly, hence, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, third, thirdly, while, in fact, kind of, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1689.0 2260.96107784 75% => OK
No of words: 315.0 441.139720559 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.3619047619 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11421290144 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 204.123752495 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.492063492063 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 512.1 705.55239521 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 19.7664670659 51% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 31.0 22.8473053892 136% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 73.1546990972 57.8364921388 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 168.9 119.503703932 141% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.5 23.324526521 135% => OK
Discourse Markers: 14.1 5.70786347227 247% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.132361401192 0.218282227539 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0612351595106 0.0743258471296 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0279181365448 0.0701772020484 40% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.07920947918 0.128457276422 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0263289015156 0.0628817314937 42% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.6 14.3799401198 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.01 48.3550499002 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.4 12.5979740519 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 98.500998004 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.1389221557 129% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 244, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Which” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ared while the interviewers approached. Which may have caused the result of the inter...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 268, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... to prove the conclusion, as it does not address the assumptions already raised. ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, first, firstly, hence, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, third, thirdly, while, in fact, kind of, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1689.0 2260.96107784 75% => OK
No of words: 315.0 441.139720559 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.3619047619 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11421290144 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 204.123752495 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.492063492063 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 512.1 705.55239521 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 19.7664670659 51% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 31.0 22.8473053892 136% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 73.1546990972 57.8364921388 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 168.9 119.503703932 141% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.5 23.324526521 135% => OK
Discourse Markers: 14.1 5.70786347227 247% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.132361401192 0.218282227539 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0612351595106 0.0743258471296 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0279181365448 0.0701772020484 40% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.07920947918 0.128457276422 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0263289015156 0.0628817314937 42% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.6 14.3799401198 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.01 48.3550499002 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.4 12.5979740519 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 98.500998004 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.1389221557 129% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.