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 the anthropologist—Dr. Karp’s point of view, the research conducted in the interview-centered method disputed the conclusion conducted from Dr. Field’s research, and also the method he adopted is superior in related to the accuracy of describing the child-rearing traditions. On the first glance, the author’s statement seems plausible, however, With a careful scrutiny, the evidence is fraught with holes and not persuasive. I can not agree with his claim if more detailed evidence failed to be presented.
First of all, the author stated that his interviews with children reveals that children are talking more about their biological parents instead of other adults. The author only mentioned that the children who he talked with are from island including Tertia, without providing detailed information about where the children grow up, it is hard for people to agree that the child interviewed are the same group of kids in Dr. Field’s research. Therefore, without promising that the subjects are the same, one can not jumped into conclusion to repute the findings of prior research. On the contrary, If there are evidence shows that Dr. Karp did asked the same children who Dr. Field, we may able to deem that Dr. Field’s conclusion is worth to take a consideration.
Secondly, even if the conclusion that Dr. Field made is not correct, it doesn’t grant that the method he used is not a good and efficient one. The author failed to provide other evidence that shows the disadvantage of applying the observation-centered method, such as numbers of other research which used the same method also yield false results, without these vital evidence, it is hard to blame the method Dr. Field adopted for the failure of gathered wrong findings.
Moreover, the author boldly stated that his interview-centered method is more accurate than the data gathered by observation-centered approach. However, he again did not offer evidence that indicate the accuracy of the result he got. If evidence showed that the children were asked more questions about their biological parents and rarely mentioned other adults in the interview’s question, we can not trust the conclusion that the children spent more time with their biological parents, then it is reasonable to say that the interviewed method is a misleading one.
Over all, after exam the evidence provided in the argument, it is apparently that the lack of vital evidence weaken the validity of Dr. Karp’s assertion. Without information to validate the accuracy of the result of his research, and more research failure to prove observation-centered method is inferior, we can hardly be convinced by the author.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/story/gre-argument-essay-topic-21-outline
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 432 350
No. of Characters: 2195 1500
No. of Different Words: 191 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.559 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.081 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.97 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 157 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 121 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 95 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30.857 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.397 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.857 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.39 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.564 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.183 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 300, Rule ID: ON_FIRST_GLANCE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'at'?
Suggestion: At
...escribing the child-rearing traditions. On the first glance, the author's sta...
^^
Line 3, column 520, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'can' requires the base form of the verb: 'jump'
Suggestion: jump
... the subjects are the same, one can not jumped into conclusion to repute the findings ...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 648, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'ask'
Suggestion: ask
...re are evidence shows that Dr. Karp did asked the same children who Dr. Field, we may...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, such as, first of all, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2295.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 430.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33720930233 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55372829156 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22933501687 2.78398813304 116% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.453488372093 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 702.0 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => 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: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 81.5306690761 57.8364921388 141% => OK
Chars per sentence: 163.928571429 119.503703932 137% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.7142857143 23.324526521 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.28571428571 5.70786347227 163% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
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: 0.172532536659 0.218282227539 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0663738792234 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0586745662484 0.0701772020484 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105281767641 0.128457276422 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0485451120749 0.0628817314937 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.1 14.3799401198 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 48.3550499002 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.28 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.