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.
The author concludes here that the research carried out by Dr Field 20 years ago about child-rearing tradition on the Island of Tersia as well as the observation-centred approach used to be invalid due to the conclusion of his recent research. To justify this argument, the author use of the interview-centred approach to carry out the same study invalidates Dr Field’s previous works. However, scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author’s conclusion. Hence the argument can be considered unsubstantiated.
First of all, the argument readily claims that the author also points out that observation-centred methodology of researching the traditions of child-rearing is invalid due to the intent of the author’s interview-centred approach. This argument is a weak and unsupported claim as it does not demonstrate any clear correlation between his research and Dr Field’s. Furthermore, for a previous research method to be disproved by more recent ones, there should be a more detailed explanation for its rebuttal. If this argument had provided facts and figures about previous research works that used the same research methods, then it would have been a lot more convincing to the reader.
Secondly, the argument readily assumes that the children spending so much time talking about their parents show that they reared them. This is merely an assumption made without solid ground. For example, how would one readily speak volumes about one’s parents if not asked? Hence the argument would have been much convincing if it explicitly stated that the kinds of conversations Dr Field had with the children on Tersia Island 20 years ago.
Finally, the author cites that he is currently working with a team researching the traditions of child-rearing in Tersia and other Islands with his interview-centred method thereby not stating whether Dr Field carried out his observations solely or not. However, scrutiny of the evidence provides little credence to the author’s conclusion in several critical respects and raises several skeptical questions. For example, did Dr Field work with any team of researchers or students? Are there records of researches that used the observation-centred approach and still relevant? Did Dr Field have access to the same kinds of research tools and materials the author used? Is the rebuttal of research enough to invalidate a research method? Without convincing answers to these questions, the reader is left with the impression that the claim made by the author is more of wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the author’s argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide more concrete evidence, perhaps by way of a detailed analysis of the reasons behind invalidating the observation-centred approach. Finally, to better evaluate the argument, it would be necessary to know more information about invalidating a research method due to the rebuttal of a researcher’s work.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 473 350
No. of Characters: 2499 1500
No. of Different Words: 213 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.664 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.283 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.176 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 193 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 155 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 112 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.524 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.791 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.335 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.335 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.086 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 517, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...le support for the author’s conclusion. Hence the argument can be considered unsubsta...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 194, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...ions of child-rearing is invalid due to the invent of the author’s interview-centered appr...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 283, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...lumes about one’s parents if not asked? Hence the argument would have been much convi...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, still, then, well, for example, in conclusion, talking about, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2620.0 2260.96107784 116% => OK
No of words: 487.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.37987679671 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69766713281 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.28041584874 2.78398813304 118% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 204.123752495 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.466119096509 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 790.2 705.55239521 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.6257486961 57.8364921388 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.090909091 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1363636364 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.04545454545 5.70786347227 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.123487537384 0.218282227539 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0424695256332 0.0743258471296 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0483090150669 0.0701772020484 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0803082486556 0.128457276422 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0466917423069 0.0628817314937 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 98.500998004 122% => 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.