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.
The author argues here that observation-centred approach to studying cultures is invalid and interview-centred method establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions in islands cultures. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. To justify this conclusion, the author notes that. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that, it provides with little credible support for author’s conclusion. Hence the argument can be considered incomplete or in substantiated
First of all, the argument readily argues assumes that there is no change in the Tertia and surrounding island group. This is merely an assumption, made without much said on the ground. For example, this should be looked on. Hence the argument would have been much more convincing if it explicitly stated that, Tertia population has not changed over time.
The argument readily claims that Dr. Karp and his graduate student conducted interviews in the group of islands including Tertia. This again is a weak and unsupported claim as it does not demonstrate any correlation between A and B. To illustrate further, let us look at the example. If the argument had provided evidence that, , then it would have been a lot more convincing to the reader.
Finally the author, cites/notes that certain questions were asked. But in order to evaluate this claim we might need to get hold of those questions to check the how relative they are. However careful scrutiny of evidence reveals that it provides, little credible support for author’s conclusion in several critical respect & raises several sceptical questions. Without convincing answers to those questions, the reader is left with the impression, that the claims made by the author are more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the author’s argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster, it further the author must provide clear/better/more concrete evidence, perhaps by way of a reliable survey or a detailed analysis of main topic. Finally to better assess/evaluate the argument/survey, it would be necessary to know more information about why observation-centred approach to studying cultures is invalid and interview-centred method establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions in islands cultures
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: However careful scrutiny of evidence reveals that it provides, little credible support for author's conclusion in several critical respect & raises several sceptical questions.
Error: sceptical Suggestion: skeptical
-----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 373 350
No. of Characters: 1971 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.395 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.284 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.037 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 161 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.632 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.48 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.312 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.529 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.068 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 507, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...e support for author's conclusion. Hence the argument can be considered incomple...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 226, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
... For example, this should be looked on. Hence the argument would have been much more ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 328, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...the argument had provided evidence that, , then it would have been a lot more conv...
^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...a lot more convincing to the reader. Finally the author, cites/notes that certain qu...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 158, Rule ID: THE_HOW[1]
Message: Did you mean 'how'?
Suggestion: how
...to get hold of those questions to check the how relative they are. However careful scru...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 231, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...y or a detailed analysis of main topic. Finally to better assess/evaluate the argument/...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, however, if, look, then, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2051.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 368.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.57336956522 5.12650576532 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37987740619 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.32817728815 2.78398813304 120% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.554347826087 0.468620217663 118% => OK
syllable_count: 627.3 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 63.8652494171 57.8364921388 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.947368421 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3684210526 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.89473684211 5.70786347227 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0966204316284 0.218282227539 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0314756960707 0.0743258471296 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0410168942556 0.0701772020484 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0576800589307 0.128457276422 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0271474511633 0.0628817314937 43% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.03 12.5979740519 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.91 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.