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.
According to Dr. Karp's article, the main difference he had with Dr. Field was the way children were reared in the island of Tertia. Dr Karp has mentioned that he interviewed children from a group of islands that included Tertia, he did not mention exactly how many children were from Tertia, it could have been just one child talking about his parents while the other children on Tertia were subjected to being raised by the entire village, thus confirming Dr. Field's observation.
Also, there was a lack of information regarding the type of questions asked to the children or the context of what they actually said about their parents, for instance, a child might have spent the whole interview talking about how he misses his parents and doesn't get enough time with them as he is busy spending time with the entire village that teaches him, should this be the case, then Dr. Field's theory would probably be the correct one.
In addition to all this, Dr. Karp needs to explain the methods that his team of graduate students are carrying and to prove its efficiency and validate its results, and to keep in mind that interview-centered methods depend on the sincerity of the person responding to your questions, Dr. Karp should tackle this issue and prove the truth of the answers and results.
There is no denying that either Dr. Karp or Dr.Field could be right, however both lacked cruical evidence to prove their points, a simple observation of a village nor a general survey and interviews are enough to base a study on, more concrete evidence and information is vital to evaluate their claims.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/story/gre-argument-essay-topic-21-outline
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 5 15
No. of Words: 278 350
No. of Characters: 1302 1500
No. of Different Words: 157 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.083 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.683 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.457 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 90 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 65 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 38 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 19 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 55.6 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 18.227 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.8 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.532 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.532 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.268 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 260, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ing about how he misses his parents and doesnt get enough time with them as he is busy...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 48, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Field
...s no denying that either Dr. Karp or Dr.Field could be right, however both lacked cru...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, however, if, regarding, so, then, thus, while, for instance, in addition, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 55.5748502994 63% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1331.0 2260.96107784 59% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 276.0 441.139720559 63% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.82246376812 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07593519647 4.56307096286 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50141736759 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 204.123752495 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.597826086957 0.468620217663 128% => OK
syllable_count: 392.4 705.55239521 56% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 5.0 19.7664670659 25% => 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: 55.0 22.8473053892 241% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 103.944985449 57.8364921388 180% => OK
Chars per sentence: 266.2 119.503703932 223% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 55.2 23.324526521 237% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 20.6 5.70786347227 361% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.243094958634 0.218282227539 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.151445781521 0.0743258471296 204% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0927922914688 0.0701772020484 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136666622829 0.128457276422 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.105465319862 0.0628817314937 168% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 28.9 14.3799401198 201% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: 32.57 48.3550499002 67% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 22.4 12.197005988 184% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.56 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.8 8.32208582834 118% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 98.500998004 61% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 24.0 11.1389221557 215% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.