“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 his article, Dr. Karp claims that, the interview-centred approach, that his team uses, is better than the observation-centred approach to studying cultures. This claim is based on the premise, that the study carried out by another anthropologist, Dr. Field in the island of Tertia, reported findings that Dr. Karp’s study found fallacious. Dr. Karp, in his research, interviewed children living in Tertia now, who talk mostly about their biological parents that according to Dr. Karp is an indicator of that they are not reared by the entire village and is opposite to what Dr. Field had observed twenty years ago. Dr. Karp’s claim, as it stands now, is based on various assumptions, and unless more evidence can be obtained, bolstering his claims, a recommendation cannot be made.
Firstly, we need evidence, that proves, that the child rearing practices in Tertia have not changed in the last twenty years or in other words, we need substantial proof that the way children are raised now, is a good representative of how children were raised twenty years ago. For instance, it is possible that, when Dr. Field visited Tertia twenty years ago, it was widespread practice of rearing children, that were not yours, and the whole village was like a family. The reason could possibly be, say, because all the village folk practiced farming with each other and hence, all the kids were just raised by the women of the family together or it is plausible that there was a war back then and most parents were busy fighting in the war, and that is why the children were taken care by other people of the village. If either of these scenarios is true, Dr. Karp’s claim that Dr. Field’s study yielded fallacious results is not true, nor does it prove that his approach of research is inferior.
The next evidence we need is whether conclusion based on one study can be applied to other studies, in different fields. Let us assume for the sake of argument, that there are no significant differences in Tertia now or twenty years ago, and Dr. Field’s claims were indeed false. But just because one study yielded poor results does not mean, the entire approach of observation-centric research is wrong. We need proof, as series of reserach, where this same technique was used and all of them led to subpar results.
Lastly, we need evidence of how an interview-based approach is superior to the observation-based approach, what other studies Dr. Karp has conducted using the same approach that have yielded great results. Also, it is plausible, that his team of grad students, is being untruthful about the fact that they conducted these surveys, for all we know, they fudged the interviews just to prove Dr. Field’s study as wrong. Also, just because children talk more about their parents, that is not a good enough indicator that they are exclusively raised by them. If any of these were true, the recommendation holds no water. And unless we have substantial proof that Dr. Karp’s method is tried and tested, and his interviews were scrupulously conducted, and the children talk only about people who raise them, no conclusions can be drawn.
Hence, to sum up, as of now, Dr. Karp’s article relies of several unwarranted assumptions, and until and unless, we receive supporting evidence of his various claims, his recommendation cannot be deemed as true.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 566 350
No. of Characters: 2705 1500
No. of Different Words: 236 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.878 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.779 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.708 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 179 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 124 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 84 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 31.444 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.388 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.556 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.361 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.562 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.186 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 484, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
...e village was like a family. The reason could possibly be, say, because all the village folk p...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, lastly, so, then, for instance, in other words, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 42.0 19.6327345309 214% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 26.0 13.6137724551 191% => OK
Pronoun: 61.0 28.8173652695 212% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2813.0 2260.96107784 124% => OK
No of words: 566.0 441.139720559 128% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96996466431 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87757670434 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8004403014 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 256.0 204.123752495 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.452296819788 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 819.0 705.55239521 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 19.0 4.96107784431 383% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 10.0 1.67365269461 597% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 31.0 22.8473053892 136% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 66.2979851844 57.8364921388 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 156.277777778 119.503703932 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.4444444444 23.324526521 135% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.27777777778 5.70786347227 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => 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: 0.326480113989 0.218282227539 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.108884023625 0.0743258471296 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0953209994729 0.0701772020484 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.185002475778 0.128457276422 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.098175102457 0.0628817314937 156% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 14.3799401198 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.93 48.3550499002 118% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.14 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.05 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.1389221557 129% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.