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.
Dr. Karp bases asserts that Dr. Field's findings that children were reared by an entire village as invalid due to evidence Dr. Karp collected to the contrary. However, in order to evaluate the relative accuracy of the data collected, further description of the two methdological approaches is necessary.
First, Dr. Karp alleges that the observational approach writ large is ineffective. Given the lack of additional context, we can only assume Dr. Karp is basing that off a sample size of one: Dr. Field's study. In order to make a convincing case that this methodology is inherently flawed, and not just its implementation in one discrete study, Dr. Karp must provide evidence of other observational anthropological studies that have later been conclusively proven inaccurate.
Second, Dr. Karp claims that the interview method is more accurate than the observational approach. In order to evaluate that claim, the reader needs to know how the interviews were conducted. It is possible that Dr. Karps interviews only included questions about biological parents, which bias the answers of the children towards discussing those parental figures at the exclusion of others who reared them. Furthermore, Dr. Karp claims this method is more accurate for understanding all island cultures. In order to give credence to that claim, evidence suggesting the transferability of interview techniques across cultures is required.
Moreover, in order to evaluate the relative efficacy of the two methodologies for the purposes of understanding this cultural phenomenon, child rearing must be explicitly defined. If someone who has the greatest responsibility for rearing children is simply the individual who spends the greatest number of hours with that child, then the observational method would be the most appropriate one to measure that aspect of culture. If however rearing is defined as shaping the personality, behavior, and values of an individual, it is possible that some individuals may have an influence that is disproportional to the amount of time spent with the child. In that case, the interview method may glean more relevant information.
Overall, much more evidence is required to substantiate Dr. Karp's argument that Dr. Field's conclusion regarding child-rearing traditions on Tertia are invalid, and that the interviews are methodologically superior to observations to arrive at this cultural understanding. Notably, a definition of key terms, a description of the methodogies being compared, and further context regarding the cultures of the regions under study is largely absent.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
the argument 1 and argument 2 can be put in one argument.
argument 3 -- not exactly
---------------------
here goes the sample with the correct arguments:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-essays/gre-argumentthe-following-appear…
----------------------
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: 16 15
No. of Words: 398 350
No. of Characters: 2153 1500
No. of Different Words: 205 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.467 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.41 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.125 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 164 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 135 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 102 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.875 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.688 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.352 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.585 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.083 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, second, so, then
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 21.0 13.6137724551 154% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2207.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 398.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.54522613065 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46653527281 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19920687407 2.78398813304 115% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545226130653 0.468620217663 116% => OK
syllable_count: 688.5 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.7753027299 57.8364921388 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.9375 119.503703932 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.875 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.6875 5.70786347227 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.244033352472 0.218282227539 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0815837516624 0.0743258471296 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0868696088927 0.0701772020484 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147149963978 0.128457276422 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0623692762254 0.0628817314937 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 14.3799401198 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.21 12.5979740519 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.55 8.32208582834 115% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 98.500998004 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.