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 article talks about Dr. Karp rejecting Dr. Field's observations about the child-rearing traditions on the island of Tertia from 20 years ago. Dr. Karp also suggests that his interviews with the children on that island were the polar opposite of that of Dr. Field. Dr. Karp's team is alsoworking on getting more reliable and clearer conclusions about this topic. However, the author has used ambiguious language which calls to question upon a few of the things mentioned in the article and a few that haven't been stated.
Firstly, the author invalidates Dr. Field's observations that were done 20 years ago based on Dr. Karp's recent interactions with these children. A lot can change in 20 years, maybe the former observations were true during that time period and not valid currently, but cancelling out the entire conclusion from before is just wrong. The author could give more insights on this, like facts or some other supporting points to make his stance clearer.
Secondly, Dr. Karp assumes that observation-centered approaches are invalid just on the basis of one such case. Maybe they are actually valid in most of the cases where interviews of this sort cannot be conducted. Maybe they are the best possible tool in some cultures. Maybe the way Dr. Field carried out his observations are not right but if done correctly, the results could be astonishing. If the author could get some evidence and also consider these few points, his argument would strengthen.
Lastly, the author assumes that his team of graduate students are better educated and experienced than Dr. Field and that they are carrying out the interviews well. Maybe they are only asking questions related to the chidlrens' parents or are only focusing on the parts of the answers which involve things about their parents. If Dr. Karp could give more clarity on these things, he/she would be able to make his/her point more clearly.
In conclusion, I feel that Dr. Karp can better his article by giving more clarity on the aforementioned points. These will help strengthen his point and imporve the overall conclusion of the reasearch better for everyone.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 9 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 358 350
No. of Characters: 1745 1500
No. of Different Words: 182 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.35 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.874 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.606 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 112 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 80 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 55 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 34 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.059 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.33 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.647 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.354 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.576 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.105 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 503, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
...mentioned in the article and a few that havent been stated. Firstly, the author inv...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 271, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...he best possible tool in some cultures. Maybe the way Dr. Field carried out his obser...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, well, i feel, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 16.3942115768 24% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1787.0 2260.96107784 79% => OK
No of words: 355.0 441.139720559 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0338028169 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34067318298 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66746433881 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.523943661972 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 524.7 705.55239521 74% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.623848047 57.8364921388 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 105.117647059 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8823529412 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.94117647059 5.70786347227 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.245662331287 0.218282227539 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0870269891131 0.0743258471296 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0908991447013 0.0701772020484 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.146145403252 0.128457276422 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0795514415516 0.0628817314937 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 98.500998004 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.