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
In this argument, Dr Karp concluded that the interview-centred method which he and his team are using to understand the child-rearing tradition in the island of Tertia is more valid than Dr Field’s observation method. He arrived at this conclusion based on some pieces of evidence which if true, makes the argument effective. However, there are three unwarranted assumptions in the author’s argument which if not properly addressed, will impair the persuasiveness of the argument.
Firstly, the author assumes that the children observed by Dr Field on the island of Tertia twenty years ago are the same as the children his team interviewed recently, but this may not be the case. It is possible that the children Dr Field observed twenty years ago on the Island of Tertia are now grown, and do not reside on the island anymore. For instance, Dr Karp may have observed children who indeed are reared by an entire village, but twenty years later, there exist a different set of children that are reared by their biological parents. Likewise, there may be frequent changes in the child-rearing tradition in the island of Tertia, whereby this year children are reared by the community, and the next year children are reared by the biological parent. With the wide gap between Dr Field’s observation and Dr Karp interview, the whole culture of the village may currently be in the phase of child-rearing by the biological parents. If this assumption proves true, it undermines the claim made by the author in the argument.
Furthermore, the author assumes that because the children interviewed were talking about their biological parents more than other adults in the village, it automatically means that the children were reared by their parents, whereas this might not be true. The children may be merely talking about their biological parent because they miss them, or because they just feel like, or just for any other reason without any strings being attached. If this is true, then the argument persuasiveness will be flawed.
Lastly, the author assumes that by interviewing the children, accurate information about the child-rearing tradition is guaranteed. While interviewing the children can provide some kind of information that will help to determine the child-rearing tradition, the information obtained is not necessarily reliable, or serve as factual data. It is possible that the children being interviewed are not being honest in their responses. For instance, the children might feel the questions are not that important, and thereby give random answers that are not true. Also, the children may not understand the questions, and just provide whatever information they see fit. If this is true, the author’s claim will be marred.
In conclusion, before the author's argument about having a more reliable method of understanding the child-rearing tradition on the island of Tertia can hold water, the assumptions stated above must be properly addressed.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 477 350
No. of Characters: 2432 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.673 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.099 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.822 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 179 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 134 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.105 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.113 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.842 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.367 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.573 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.17 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 288, Rule ID: IF_IS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
... based on some pieces of evidence which if true, makes the argument effective. How...
^^
Line 2, column 407, Rule ID: IF_IS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
...umptions in the author’s argument which if not properly addressed, will impair the...
^^
Line 8, column 62, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...sumes that by interviewing the children, accurate information about the child-rea...
^^
Line 10, column 27, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...be marred. In conclusion, before the authors argument about having a more reliable m...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, lastly, likewise, may, so, then, whereas, while, for instance, in conclusion, kind of, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2508.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 477.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25786163522 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67336384929 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91884888444 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.417190775681 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 754.2 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 9.0 1.67365269461 538% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.519405373 57.8364921388 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.0 119.503703932 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.1052631579 23.324526521 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.05263157895 5.70786347227 141% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.248789495001 0.218282227539 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0877330304375 0.0743258471296 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100955550069 0.0701772020484 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132013386185 0.128457276422 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.123803266644 0.0628817314937 197% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.