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
In the article by Dr. Karp, it is concluded that the observation-centered approach is invalid and an interview-centered approach will be much more effective for understanding the child rearing tradition in Tertia and in other island culture. However, the conclusion relies on three assumptions, if refuted, will dramatically undermine the persuasiveness of the argument. Before, evaluating the argument, three pieces of evidence need to collect and analyze.
Firstly, the Dr. Karp assumes that, when children talk more about their biological parents, then they are reared by them. However, this may not be the case. It is possible that the entire village in the Tertia rears the children, but children are more inclined towards the biological parents. Thus, they are talking more about their biological parents. It also possible that the interviewer ask more question about the children’s biological parents. For this reason, the children are more talking about the biological parents. The author did not provide enough evidence about the interview. If any of the cases is true, then the author’s contention will not be perfect and will be questionable.
Secondly, Dr. Karp content that the approach of Dr. Field is faulty and less accurate without providing sufficient information and assumes that only one evidence is enough to decide the accuracy of an approach. However, this may not be necessarily true. It is possible that observation-centered approach by Field is showing the exact picture of the village. On the other hand, interview-centered approach by Karp is not showing the real scenario, and the approach may be biased. For deciding which approach is more accurate author need to provide more evidence, and results. Otherwise, the conclusion will not hold the water.
Finally, Dr. Karp claims that by following the interview-centered approach his team will be able to find accurate information about the other island village, but this may not be the case. It is possible that the other island villages people are not communicative a Tertia. Then, the team may not be able to conduct proper interview. It also possible that the villager of other island are speaking in such language that the language is unable to interpret. If any of the case is true, the interview-centered approach will not be effective and, thus, the argument is weakened.
In conclusion, as it stands now, the argument is based on the mentioned assumptions, which make the argument specious and untenable. Therefore, the author need to provide additional evidence to support the conclusion and to make the argument cogent and reasonable.
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: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 418 350
No. of Characters: 2147 1500
No. of Different Words: 165 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.522 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.136 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.066 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 157 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 130 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.417 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.831 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.708 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.319 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.523 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.104 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, in conclusion, talking about, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 55.5748502994 68% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2223.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 418.0 441.139720559 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31818181818 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52162009685 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16732769044 2.78398813304 114% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.413875598086 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 687.6 705.55239521 97% => 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: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.8267658716 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.625 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4166666667 23.324526521 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.08333333333 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 14.0 4.67664670659 299% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.152291488298 0.218282227539 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0444255430478 0.0743258471296 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0661233107363 0.0701772020484 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0870731280277 0.128457276422 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0512747446068 0.0628817314937 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.28 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.84 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.