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 anthropologist Dr. Karp’s written article at first glance may seem plausible. However, as one examines closely the stated assumptions made by the author; it become obvious that this argument is rife with holes and inaccuracies. Dr Karp does not make a cogent case to sway his constituents regarding his interview-centered method. Thus, this is a flawed argument and will have little impact on the readers unless he can provide evidence to support his opinions.
To begin with, Dr Karp compares his recent study with a twenty-year-old study conducted by Dr. Field and assumes that both have the same validity. However, with that time difference the results can greatly vary. For instance, perhaps with the advancement of technology and medicine the town of Tertia has relied less on children being raised by an entire village? Therefore, greatly changing their customs where biological parents are now solely involved.
Furthermore, the anthropologist claims that he or she conducted many interviews among different islands,but mentions to provide quantified data on how many of those interviews were conducted on Tertia. This is very important because other islands may not have the same views as Tertia. Hence, the study isn’t representative and this will severely weaken the argument is the majority of his studies were concluded on other regions. To strengthen this claim Dr. Karp must quantified his interviews. Also, the anthropologist claims that because children were talking about their biological parents Dr. Fields study must therefore be invalid. Maybe, children were talking about their biological parents because they miss them due to being raised by others? Again, this would bolster Dr. Fields study and be counterproductive to his own theory.
Lastly, Dr. Karp suggest that one study is enough to change the approach of another study. Where his interview-method supercedes Dr. fields method. If anything due to the length of time the latter is tested throughout time making it more valid.
All in all, as we can see this argument is flawed with holes and assumptions that must be addressed if dr Karp wishes to sway his readers, As of now is will not hold water.
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: 9 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 354 350
No. of Characters: 1791 1500
No. of Different Words: 196 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.338 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.059 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.836 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 131 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 59 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.632 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.176 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.842 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.317 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.523 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 162, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'becomes'?
Suggestion: becomes
...ated assumptions made by the author; it become obvious that this argument is rife with...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 104, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , but
... many interviews among different islands,but mentions to provide quantified data on ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 92, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Where” 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.
...o change the approach of another study. Where his interview-method supercedes Dr. fie...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 149, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” 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.
...ew-method supercedes Dr. fields method. If anything due to the length of time the ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, lastly, may, regarding, so, then, therefore, thus, for instance, talking about, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 55.5748502994 70% => 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: 1849.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 352.0 441.139720559 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25284090909 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33147354134 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91580673446 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.545454545455 0.468620217663 116% => OK
syllable_count: 556.2 705.55239521 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => 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: 39.1554187106 57.8364921388 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.3157894737 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5263157895 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.57894736842 5.70786347227 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.67664670659 257% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.262791015431 0.218282227539 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.079239089321 0.0743258471296 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0594459345414 0.0701772020484 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132447761257 0.128457276422 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0469248009702 0.0628817314937 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.48 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.