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 that children in Tertia were reared by the entire village rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with children living in the group of islands including Tertia show that these children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than any other elders of the village. This research of mine proves that Dr. Feild's conclusion about Tertian village culture is invalid and thus the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid as well. The interview-centered approach that my team of graduates 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 puts forth an argument that since the inferences from his interview-centred approach were contradictory to the observation-based approach of Dr. Feild, Dr. Feild's conclusion that child-rearing is done by the entire village is false and that his methodology of research i.e. interview-centric is superior to his. In order to make the argument strong, the author must put forth evidence like the kind of questions asked in the interview, the representative nature of the children interviewed, the correlation of talking time subject to the child rearing and the basis of extrapolating his methods superiority in one aspect to all other fields and aspects.
Firstly, the author must put forth the all the questions that the children at the island of Tertia were asked. Were the questions neutral? It is quite possible that the interviewer might have asked the question specific to their biological parents to those children which would have led to the responses concentrated more on the biological parents than other elders of the village. Therefore, the author must provide us to the entire questionnaire that was used to interview the children. If the questionnaire proves to be neutral, it would lend support to Dr. Karp's claim otherwise, it would undermine his claim that talking more about biological parents imply that they are not reared by the entire village.
Secondly, Dr. Karp should provide us with the evidence that the children he interviewed were representative of the entire village children. It is quite possible that the sample of children picked up by Dr. Karp's team is biased and if made up of those marginal group of children in the village who are raised by their own parents only. Therefore, it is crucial to assess this argument to have the representativeness of the sample interviewed and the proof that it is in no way biased.
Also, the author should explain how the talking time about biological parents related to who reared them. For example, if a child talks about his parent's characteristics or occupation does not mean that they have raised him. Since, the author is employing this logic here, he must evince how the two are correlated and how talking about biological parents leads him to conclude that they are the ones who rear the children and not the entire village.
The other fragile aspect of the argument is that Dr. Karp claims that his interview-centered approach is better for research than the Observation-centered approach of Dr. Field on the basis of just one case. He must give evidence of all the other fields and cases where his modus operandi for the research have proved to be superior to the other way. He must also enlist exhaustively all the cases as well as areas in which Dr. Feild's method of observation-centric approach have proved to be a failure. Without a rigorous analysis, we cannot generalize the expedience of one method over another. It may be proven that this case was an exception and anomaly and in majority of the cases, the other approach proves better.
In sum, the author must provide the evidence asked for in-order to strengthen his argument. Without them, the argument lacks the basis required to assess and is thus fragile and we must be skeptic of it's conclusion.
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. 58
- A recent study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that employees with paid sick leave are 28 less likely to be involved in a work related accident than employees that do not receive payment for the sick leave Researchers hypothesize th66
- Collectors prize the ancient life- size clay statuesof human figuresmade on Kali Island but have long wondered how Kalinese artists were able to depict bodies with such realistic precision. Since archeologist have recently discoveredmolds of human heads a62
- Claim: In order to help small businesses thrive, government should play a minimal role in private business matters.Write an essay in which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to use most compelling rea50
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and su50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 161, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
...observation-based approach of Dr. Feild, Dr. Feilds conclusion that child-rearing...
Line 3, column 193, Rule ID: ASK_THE_QUESTION
Message: Use simply 'asked' instead.
...ossible that the interviewer might have asked the question specific to their biological parents to...
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'first', 'firstly', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'thus', 'well', 'for example', 'kind of', 'talking about', 'as well as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.239726027397 0.25644967241 93% => OK
Verbs: 0.155821917808 0.15541462614 100% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0719178082192 0.0836205057962 86% => OK
Adverbs: 0.041095890411 0.0520304965353 79% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0582191780822 0.0272364105082 214% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.123287671233 0.125424944231 98% => OK
Participles: 0.0428082191781 0.0416121511921 103% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.00255295695 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0359589041096 0.026700313972 135% => OK
Particles: 0.00342465753425 0.001811407834 189% => OK
Determiners: 0.121575342466 0.113004496875 108% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.027397260274 0.0255425247493 107% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0205479452055 0.0127820249294 161% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3261.0 2731.13054187 119% => OK
No of words: 544.0 446.07635468 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.99448529412 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82947280553 4.57801047555 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.338235294118 0.378187486979 89% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.248161764706 0.287650121315 86% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.1875 0.208842608468 90% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0992647058824 0.135150697306 73% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00255295695 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 207.018472906 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.413602941176 0.469332199767 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 48.022381359 52.1807786196 92% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 25.9047619048 23.2022227129 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.9069426705 57.7814097925 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 155.285714286 141.986410481 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.9047619048 23.2022227129 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.761904761905 0.724660767414 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 50.7209383754 51.9672348444 98% => OK
Elegance: 1.59060402685 1.8405768891 86% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.396872150677 0.441005458295 90% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.1692995415 0.135418324435 125% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0972171575922 0.0829849096947 117% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.635382306919 0.58762219726 108% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.15306049469 0.147661913831 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.177540934785 0.193483328276 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0870039595702 0.0970749176394 90% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.453333838904 0.42659136922 106% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.117761246794 0.0774707102158 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.272810246525 0.312017818177 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0728920478931 0.0698173142475 104% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.82512315271 166% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 6.0 2.82389162562 212% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
Note: This is not the final score. 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.