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.”
The argument says that the conclusion which drawn by Dr. field is invalid depending on his conclusion by invalidity on his observation for a group of children were talking about their biological parents more than the others people. However, it could be true but not sure. Firstly the author should provide more evidence to substaintiate his conclusion that those children didn’t reared by their parants as Dr. field proved.
First, the new written article by Dr. Karb says that when he repeat the study on the Tertia’s kids observed on a group of kids were talking about their parants, and therefore, he debunks Dr.field conclusion. However, there is a significant mistake in Dr Kabr’s conclusion, as he depends on his observation on a group. Firstly, how many kids were in this group? Does this sample enough to draw conclusion. For example, if this group was from ten or even twenty kids, the evidence which sould be provide the number of those kids proportionally to the whole number of the village’s kids as they maybe live with their parants but there are more than them live without them. IF the scenario above is true;then , the drawn conclusion is significantly weakened.
Secondly, the author of this article depends on his conclusion as the children speak about their biological parants that means they are living with them. However, this is not enough evidence to conclude that and refute the conclusion of Dr. Karb as those kids perhaps have problem or dearth in their feeling towards their parants for this they always talk about them. For example, those children probably don’t live with their parants and live in somwhere else or even their parants didn’t exist (they died) since they born. Does not enough reason for these kids to always remember their parants and as corollary will like to speak about them frequently. Therefore, if this situation could be valid; the argument doesn’t hold water.
In conclusion, the argument as stands now is considerably flawed because its reliance on unwarranted assumptions. The author of this article should provide more evidence about the children in the village and their status, provide more information about the sample size for those kids who were talking about their parants. This is could be done by providing a form of systematic study reaserch to be feasible to evaluate this argument effectively.
Comments
e-rater score report
Sentence: Firstly the author should provide more evidence to substaintiate his conclusion that those children didn't reared by their parants as Dr. field proved.
Error: parants Suggestion: parents
Error: didn Suggestion: did
Error: substaintiate Suggestion: substantiate
Sentence: First, the new written article by Dr. Karb says that when he repeat the study on the Tertia's kids observed on a group of kids were talking about their parants, and therefore, he debunks Dr.field conclusion.
Error: parants Suggestion: parents
Error: debunks Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: For example, if this group was from ten or even twenty kids, the evidence which sould be provide the number of those kids proportionally to the whole number of the village's kids as they maybe live with their parants but there are more than them live without them.
Error: parants Suggestion: parents
Error: sould Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: Secondly, the author of this article depends on his conclusion as the children speak about their biological parants that means they are living with them.
Error: parants Suggestion: parents
Sentence: However, this is not enough evidence to conclude that and refute the conclusion of Dr. Karb as those kids perhaps have problem or dearth in their feeling towards their parants for this they always talk about them.
Error: parants Suggestion: parents
Sentence: For example, those children probably don't live with their parants and live in somwhere else or even their parants didn't exist they died since they born.
Error: somwhere Suggestion: somewhere
Error: parants Suggestion: parents
Error: didn Suggestion: did
Sentence: Does not enough reason for these kids to always remember their parants and as corollary will like to speak about them frequently.
Error: parants Suggestion: parents
Sentence: Therefore, if this situation could be valid; the argument doesn't hold water.
Error: doesn Suggestion: does
Sentence: In conclusion, the argument as stands now is considerably flawed because its reliance on unwarranted assumptions.
Error: unwarranted Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: The author of this article should provide more evidence about the children in the village and their status, provide more information about the sample size for those kids who were talking about their parants.
Error: parants Suggestion: parents
Sentence: This is could be done by providing a form of systematic study reaserch to be feasible to evaluate this argument effectively.
Error: reaserch Suggestion: reach
-----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: PoorExcellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 397 350
No. of Characters: 1925 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.464 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.849 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.488 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 128 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 100 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 60 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 33 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.353 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.732 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.824 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.348 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.514 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.132 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 380, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[4]
Message: The verb 'didn't' requires base form of this verb: 'rear'
Suggestion: rear
...s conclusion that those children didn’t reared by their parants as Dr. field proved. ...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 62, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'repeats'.
Suggestion: repeats
...n article by Dr. Karb says that when he repeat the study on the Tertia’s kids observed...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 706, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...them. IF the scenario above is true;then , the drawn conclusion is significantly w...
^^
Line 8, column 328, Rule ID: IS_SHOULD[1]
Message: Did you mean 'it'?
Suggestion: it
... were talking about their parants. This is could be done by providing a form of sy...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, for example, in conclusion, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 53.0 28.8173652695 184% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1994.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 392.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08673469388 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44960558625 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60581165631 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.44387755102 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 590.4 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.4651261957 57.8364921388 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.294117647 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0588235294 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 5.70786347227 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
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 : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.11737484573 0.218282227539 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0440008902048 0.0743258471296 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0523091890152 0.0701772020484 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0873583898154 0.128457276422 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0502346604767 0.0628817314937 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.44 8.32208582834 89% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 98.500998004 67% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.