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.
In the article from the Dr. Karp, it is stated that Dr. Field's conclusion based on observation is invalid, whereas the interview centered method of studying culture is accurate in studying the culture. However, before this prompt is evaluated some of the questions must be answered.
Firstly, it is vague to assume that the situation of twenty years before and now would be same. Things could have changed drastically in these years. Like the adaptation of new method of rearing children or harsh treatment of children by the village elders. Such factors could be responsible, now, for children to remember their biological parents and talking about them. Also, the factors that Dr. Karp took in consideration for his observation-based analysis are not pointed out for comparison. As, it could be that the Dr. Fields analysis based on that time was accurate.
Secondly, human are social beings and their thoughts are mercurial. So, it could be that the interview was conducted when the children were missing their parents. Also, it could be that the questions asked in the interview triggered the essence of parents. Moreover, we are not provided with information’s such as number of participants and types of questions asked, while conducting the interview. Also, the author has not taken in account that one can lie during interview and the questions asked during were sufficient enough to reject the analysis conducted by Dr. Field.
Lastly, the research of Dr. Karp provides no good reason for the rejection of Dr. Fields analysis. As, we do not know if the remembering of parents at present will be enough to reject others analysis. Also, we do not know, what kind of questions were asked in interview. If the questions asked were majorly focused on their biological parents, then talking about the parents rather than the other villagers is obvious.
In conclusion, the prompt presented as it is, has many flaws as it is based on the unwarranted assumption. If author provides additional information and answers to the aforementioned questions then the validity of the prompt could be re-evaluated.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 345 350
No. of Characters: 1717 1500
No. of Different Words: 164 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.31 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.977 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.757 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 128 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 99 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.158 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.815 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.842 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.316 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.316 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.134 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 244, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...owever, before this prompt is evaluated some of the questions must be answered. Firstly, i...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 497, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” 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.
...sis are not pointed out for comparison. As, it could be that the Dr. Fields analys...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, whereas, while, in conclusion, kind of, such as, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1768.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 345.0 441.139720559 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12463768116 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3097767484 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84876961911 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.501449275362 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 530.1 705.55239521 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => 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: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.9822896897 57.8364921388 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.0526315789 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1578947368 23.324526521 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.52631578947 5.70786347227 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => 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 : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.139444953781 0.218282227539 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0446746205284 0.0743258471296 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0501657550215 0.0701772020484 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0810433314071 0.128457276422 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0508823127396 0.0628817314937 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.12 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 98.500998004 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.