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."
The author’s argument that Dr. Field’s conclusion about Tertian village culture and observation-centered approach are invalid is flawed. In the argument, the author not only makes the mistake of using experiment in past to refute the Dr. Field’s theory, but also provides insufficient information about the children who were interacted with. Furthermore, the author makes the sweeping generalization about the entire method by evaluating one specific case. Hence, the argument can be considered incomplete or unsubstantiated.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that nothing cultural has changed during twenty years. This is merely an assumption made without much solid ground. For example, there could be a cultural revolution or migration from other places which would change the children’s way of thinking and dialogues. Even if no cultural change occurs during twenty years, interests and characters of the new generation alternate as time goes by. Hence, the argument would have been a lot more convincing if the author had used one of recent observation-centered experiment about the Tertia kids.
Secondly, the argument claims that author’s recent interviews showed that children spend much more time about their biological parents than about other adults in the village, but the author does not provide any information about the number of talked children or their features such as age, gender, nationality etc. To illustrate further, the author may has talked only with a small group of children who are all from the neighbor island. In this case, author’s conclusion for the experiment would be faulty. If the author had provided the sufficient data about the children, then it would be much more persuasive to the reader.
Finally, the author cites that observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid, since Dr. Field’s conclusion about Tertian village culture is invalid. However, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals that it provides little credible support for the author’s conclusion in several critical aspects, and raises several skeptical questions. For example, can the author prove that Dr. Field’s faulty experiment is enough to refute observation-centered approach or what are the criteria of faulty experiment? Without convincing answers to these questions, the reader is left with the impression that the claims made by the author are more of a 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 Dr. Field’s experiment. Finally, to better assess the argument, it would be necessary to know more information about what are the support points of the author.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not exactly
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/story/gre-argument-essay-topic-21-outline
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 430 350
No. of Characters: 2307 1500
No. of Different Words: 203 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.554 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.365 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.978 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 191 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 139 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 96 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.632 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.16 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.737 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.37 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.56 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.094 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, for example, in conclusion, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 16.3942115768 177% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2424.0 2260.96107784 107% => OK
No of words: 430.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.63720930233 5.12650576532 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55372829156 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.23267859906 2.78398813304 116% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.497674418605 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 747.9 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.1537617012 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.2 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.1 5.70786347227 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => 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: 0.13860172611 0.218282227539 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0492146470548 0.0743258471296 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.040577147269 0.0701772020484 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0868588255303 0.128457276422 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0276405708345 0.0628817314937 44% => 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: 15.9 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.43 12.5979740519 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.