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.
Dr. Karp’s article argues against Dr. Field’s research conclusions about Tertia children having been raised by an entire village as invalid. Furthermore, this author also states that Dr. Field’s observation-centered method is also invalid. He makes many claims like interview-centered approach being valid and externally generalizable. In order to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the argument, much necessary evidence is needed. The argument is either potentially valid or weaker than it is.
Firstly, necessary evidence on whether there have been changes during the intervening twenty years in Tertia and the surrounding islands. Dr. Field’s research methodology, his research conclusion could be correct in context of prevailing circumstances twenty years ago. For example, influx of tourists and other people could have introduced a western-style nuclear family structure. If it is so, then Dr. Karp’s research conclusion is also perhaps correct, though his allegations that Dr. Field’s observation-centered approach is invalid, is seriously weakened.
Another evidence is for determining whether the Dr. Karp’s research study was completed and surrounding islands. Much information about the research study design, sample size, questions asked, specific responses are needed. So, for example, if only one or only few Tertia children were interviewed and their responses uniformly recorded, then the research conclusion could be wrong.
Finally, evidence on whether the observation centered or interview centered approach is valid and generalizable for other similar island children research populations is needed for comparisons. A meta-analyses of many research papers on similar island children populations is necessary for facilitating comparisons; shared metrics like population, sample size, study design, research method used, etc.
In conclusion, much evidence on whether there have been changes in the intervening twenty years in Tertia and surrounding islands, on the interview questions asked, the recorded responses and on meta-analyses for determining whether interview centered approach is valid is necessary. Only then can we determine the strengths and weaknesses of Dr. Karp’s article.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 15 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 317 350
No. of Characters: 1856 1500
No. of Different Words: 152 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.22 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.855 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.186 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 164 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 92 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.812 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.593 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.366 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.585 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.11 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, if, so, then, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.9520958084 31% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 13.6137724551 15% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 28.8173652695 35% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 55.5748502994 45% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1926.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 317.0 441.139720559 72% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.07570977918 5.12650576532 119% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21953715646 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.26524481198 2.78398813304 117% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 204.123752495 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.492113564669 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 573.3 705.55239521 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 54.2254768882 57.8364921388 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.375 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8125 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.25 5.70786347227 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => 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: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.202231273145 0.218282227539 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0730083313251 0.0743258471296 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0842942890617 0.0701772020484 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119933316581 0.128457276422 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0625335439889 0.0628817314937 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 14.3799401198 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 48.3550499002 73% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.98 12.5979740519 143% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.9071856287 151% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.