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 examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The article asserts that the approach used by Dr. Karp and the conclusion he reached are invalid, a claim is premised on information gathered from interaction with children who are residents of the island of Tertia. However, the argument on relies on three assumptions that are unwarranted and make the conclusion flawed.
First of all, Dr. Field's conclusion based on the work conducted two decades ago may have been correct as at that date. There is huge time difference between the work of Dr. Field and that of Dr. Karp. This time difference could be enough to make the situations incomparable and hence limit the ability of Dr. Karp to make an accurate and definitive evaluation of his fellow anthropologist's approach. Tertia's customs and traditions may have changed in the intervening period or a new generation of inhabitants may have emerged. Therefore, if there have been significant changes in the practices or demographics or populace of Tertia and the other islands, then it weakens the argument that Dr. Field's approach and proposition is invalid.
Secondly, the current method is based on information derived from listening to children in those islands. These children may be not be accurate in presenting information depending on their actual age, level of development or intelligence of the interviewee as well as the conditions existing during the interviews. For example, if the child was hungry or not willingly to participate due to fear or unfamiliarity with the interviewers or simply interest in other activities such as his or her regular play routines, the child's responses may be unrealiable. Furthermore, the views of only the children interviewed may not be a fair representation of the views of most or all of the children in that location. For instance, maybe only five children were available during the interview sessions whereas Tertia has over two hundred children. If the information obtained through the interview-centred approach are not actually correct, then the conclusion based on this premises becomes less convincing.
Moreover, even if Dr. Field's obervation-centred approach and conclusion about the Tertian people are both invalid, it may be argued that the Dr. Karp's approach may not necessarily provide better results. For example, there seems to be no evidence that Dr. Karp's method is particularly suited for studying the peoples' of Tertia or other island cultures and hence would provide the requisite understanding as asserted. It may be possible that a new method or approach - that includes living with the people for an extended period of time or (first) learning their language - is required to really know the Tertians and accurately present their traditions. In conclusion, the argument appears unsound based on the assumptions discussed above and hence, the author needs to present further evidence to make claim more persuasive.
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: 17 15
No. of Words: 460 350
No. of Characters: 2392 1500
No. of Different Words: 228 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.631 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.2 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.007 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 181 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 151 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 109 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.059 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.907 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.882 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.329 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.528 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.093 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 174, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
...gathered from interaction with children who are residents of the island of Tertia. Howe...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 961, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...y correct, then the conclusion based on this premises becomes less convincing. Mo...
^^^^
Line 7, column 522, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
... living with the people for an extended period of time or first learning their language - is r...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, moreover, really, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, well, whereas, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 11.1786427146 215% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2432.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 460.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28695652174 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6311565067 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06629827585 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504347826087 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 753.3 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => 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: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.0619268309 57.8364921388 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.058823529 119.503703932 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.0588235294 23.324526521 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.8823529412 5.70786347227 208% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.212147701357 0.218282227539 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0698216902356 0.0743258471296 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0559191224316 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134502498524 0.128457276422 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0516221092324 0.0628817314937 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 14.3799401198 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.16 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 98.500998004 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.