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.
In the above article, Dr. Karp compares the observations by him and Dr. Field in terms of child-rearing traditions in island of Tertia. At the end, giving some reasoning he concludes that observations of Dr. Field are invalid, hence, his methodology for study is invalid. Though it seems to be in logical flow, but, due to ennumerous assumptions it makes Dr. Karp's argument weak.
Firstly, while telling about Dr. Field's observations Dr. Karp has not provided with adequate amount of details. We cannot decide weather the survey was reliable without knowing answers for specific question. Need to know what was the sample population considered, for how much time, what questions were asked and others. Also, as both survey have a huge gap of 20 years the ethically are not comparable as it may be affected by change in many factors. Thus, need more relevant information for comparison.
In a statement, the author tells us that children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. Further he tries to grab it to conclusion that child-rearing fact told by Dr. Field is invalid. This is really illogical to derive strong conclusion from such a reef assumptions that is children were reared by person whom they talk more about. Even it is not mentioned that what conversation was carried out with children, may be tell have told about there feeling of loneliness without there parents or also may have expressed the hatred towards there parent. Thus, making such a suttle conclusion cannot be accepted without considering all possible scenarios.
Moreover, the author giving some unproven logics directs us to conclusion that methodology used by Dr. Field is invalid. This is cannot be accepted as the author is making such a generalized conclusion by only considering single situation. There can be a case, this methodology was useful in some other surveys. It also can be case that some aspects of the methodologies were useful and making changes to certain other may drive it to evolve as effective technique to use. Thus, without detailed analysis of both the methodology, the author must not take stand to choose one over another.
Finally, it would be great if the author can carry out detailed survey and come up with some solid evidences to prove his arguments that is Dr. Fields methodology is invalid with respect to child-rearing culture of islands of Tertia and need an updation to Interview-centered method.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 410 350
No. of Characters: 2024 1500
No. of Different Words: 217 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.5 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.937 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.743 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 148 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 105 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 68 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.579 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.677 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.684 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.303 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.303 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.111 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, hence, if, may, moreover, really, so, thus, while, talking about, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2068.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 410.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.04390243902 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49982852243 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80320204434 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.534146341463 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 643.5 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.7276794679 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.842105263 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5789473684 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.15789473684 5.70786347227 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.181518913995 0.218282227539 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.057334145855 0.0743258471296 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0712723434576 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11614271181 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0746450008139 0.0628817314937 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
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: 11.95 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => 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.