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.
Dr Karp and his team state that their interview centered approach would prove more accurate information based on the rearing traditions of the Tertia, but how do they know for sure if their method of research does in fact bring in more accurate data? Dr. Field's observation study could have also included interview methods as well and not strictly observation methods to come to a conclusion on what the type of child rearing was done by the Tertia. The observation group took a whole picture point of view versus just an interview approach which could have shown data correlation with the idea that the child rearing was done as a community versus strictly done by the biological parent. This means Dr. Field took a look at the whole village in its entirety. Dr. Karp only assumes that the observation method was used. Dr. Karp does not go into detail on how their research was fully conducted in order to come to their alternative undeveloped conclusion. The interview approach only stated that they spoke with the children and that they spoke about their biological parents more than the other villagers, but this statement cannot outright invalidate Dr. Field's conclusion strictly with this information. Dr Karp could have been collecting data on the basis that the children actually live with their biological parents for most of the time therefore which could increase the likelihood of the children increasing the mentions of their biological parents in interviews conducted by Dr. Karp's Team. Dr. Karp does not indicate whether or not they did any other additional research besides the interviews with the children. The conclusion that all observation centered approaches to studying all cultures should be invalid is unwarranted.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 10 15
No. of Words: 285 350
No. of Characters: 1445 1500
No. of Different Words: 142 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.109 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.07 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.616 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 92 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 80 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 64 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.761 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.416 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.416 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.124 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1530, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
... Karps Team. Dr. Karp does not indicate whether or not they did any other additional research ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, besides, but, if, look, so, therefore, well, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 19.6327345309 36% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 55.5748502994 59% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1458.0 2260.96107784 64% => OK
No of words: 285.0 441.139720559 65% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.11578947368 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.56307096286 90% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6543900233 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 204.123752495 71% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.508771929825 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 434.7 705.55239521 62% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 19.7664670659 51% => 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: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 78.6923757425 57.8364921388 136% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.8 119.503703932 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.5 23.324526521 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.8 5.70786347227 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 1.0 5.15768463074 19% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 6.88822355289 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.184142978607 0.218282227539 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.083641713264 0.0743258471296 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0330011352783 0.0701772020484 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.184142978607 0.128457276422 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0628817314937 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.9 14.3799401198 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.52 48.3550499002 107% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 57.0 98.500998004 58% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 12.3882235529 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.