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 arguments stated above make some unstated assumption, if these assumptions goes unwarranted then the argument falls apart. The arguments stated about Dr. Karp findings and conslusions which are made on several unwarranted assumtptions which render doubt to the arguement itself. To say concretely that Dr. Karp's claim is valid we need answer to some questions which will strengthen the argument.
Firstly, Dr Karp hailed interview-centered approach in order to determine the child rearing traditions. In order to establish this approach first this method needs to be backed by previous success rate depending on its sample size and questionnarie. The arguments gives no such information about its methodology and previous track record which ultimately decides the success rate of any action plan. If the method is ot backed by any revious success rate it can be one of the case that the conclusion Dr. Karp and his team reached is actually imapired and does not represent the true scenario of the situation at all. They might be asking the wrong questions and surveying the wrong persons or their smaple size may be too small. So without proper information on the methodology we can not say for sure that this approach is the right and correct one.
The author claims that Dr. Field observation aout Tertia's chieldren is invalid because the children talked about only their biological parents. Since the chiledren were interviewed so it can be one of the case that the interviewer asked only the question related to biological parents. We do not know ow many open ended questions were thrown to children so that they can share their feelings and tlaked about whatever they like. It also depends on the time range of the survey as well. Did they went to the village and surveyed for one day or one year or five years we do not have that information we assess whether we should rely on the information from the children to determined the child-rearing culture of that locality.
The author states another researcher's method wrong based on the result of the research which was made 20 years ago. It time period is enough time for any society to chnage its course. It is unfair to states the methodology as incorrect based on the result of a study which was made 20 years ago. It can be one of the case that the result of Dr. Field study will change about current Tertia with his methodology as well.
To sum up, we can say that unless the above stated evidences are provided we cannot say for sure that the arguments is valid. These unstated assumptions weaken the argument from base.
Comments
e-rater score report
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: 20 15
No. of Words: 443 350
No. of Characters: 2119 1500
No. of Different Words: 224 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.588 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.783 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.624 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 140 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 97 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 73 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.15 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.199 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.55 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.306 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.539 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.123 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 265, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'give'.
Suggestion: give
...e size and questionnarie. The arguments gives no such information about its methodolo...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 496, Rule ID: DID_PAST[2]
Message: Did you mean 'go'?
Suggestion: go
...e range of the survey as well. Did they went to the village and surveyed for one day...
^^^^
Line 7, column 27, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'researchers'' or 'researcher's'?
Suggestion: researchers'; researcher's
...locality. The author states another researchers method wrong based on the result of the...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 120, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'times'?
Suggestion: times
...esearch which was made 20 years ago. It time period is enough time for any society t...
^^^^
Line 7, column 297, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...of a study which was made 20 years ago. It can be one of the case that the result ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, firstly, if, may, so, then, well, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 28.8173652695 149% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2157.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 443.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8690744921 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58776254615 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64231994365 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.492099322799 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 660.6 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.4970113916 57.8364921388 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.85 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.15 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.3 5.70786347227 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.12214113668 0.218282227539 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0397500729442 0.0743258471296 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0440085884041 0.0701772020484 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0653857615915 0.128457276422 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0351119474862 0.0628817314937 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.01 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 98.500998004 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.