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.
It will be very inappropriate to condemn Dr. Field’s observations and findings. A critical look and analyses of the argument shows that details of Dr. Field’s work was not given out. In fact, it is sad on the side of the writer to think that Dr.Fields work is invalid.
First, the fact that the children of Tertia spend much time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village can be interpreted in a different way. The writer did not give any clue on what exactly the children were saying about their biological parents. It could be that they were talking about their parents irresponsibility of rearing them by themselves than leaving them in the hands of the whole community to bring them up. In fact, the argument could have been strengthened if the writer gave what exactly the children were talking about.
On the other hand, the writer failed on his or her part as a researcher to look at the time frame from the time Dr. Field did his analyses to the the time writer also conducted His or Her research. This would have given him the insight as what new developments has taken place within the twenty years gap that Dr. Field did His analyses. The writer’s argument would have given a lot of meaning if the writer had research into the cultural developments that has taken place since the time Dr. fields last visited and didcompleted His work at Tertia.
Also, as a reader, the tone this writing is not very convincing. It almost seems like Dr. Karp is making Dr. Fields look bad, instead of supporting his own research with information. He really only says one sentence about his own research, the rest of it is about how Fields work is not as good and saying things about Fields work. He needs to have more details about his own work to really sell the reader on it. He needs to write more about what the interview-centered method is, since he does not even say what it is. This will be more convincing if it is less of an attack on Dr. Field and more about the researches.
On the whole the writer’s work is incomplete and His or Her criticisms are unfounded. The writer needs to change the qualitative way of His or Her research into a more quatitative approach. If done in this way the impact of His or Her findings will be very strong and convincing.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/story/gre-argument-essay-topic-21-outline
----------------------------
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 417 350
No. of Characters: 1847 1500
No. of Different Words: 182 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.519 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.429 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.474 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 103 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 71 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 49 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 27 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.947 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.494 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.737 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.352 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.604 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.245 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 256, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Fields
...the side of the writer to think that Dr.Fields work is invalid. First, the fact that ...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 158, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a different way" with adverb for "different"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...dults in the village can be interpreted in a different way. The writer did not give any clue on wh...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 143, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
... the time Dr. Field did his analyses to the the time writer also conducted His or Her r...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 143, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
... the time Dr. Field did his analyses to the the time writer also conducted His or Her r...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 414, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...n work to really sell the reader on it. He needs to write more about what the inte...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, if, look, really, so, then, in fact, talking about, on the whole, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 47.0 28.8173652695 163% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 16.3942115768 30% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1904.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 416.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.57692307692 5.12650576532 89% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51620172871 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63419423922 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.447115384615 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 572.4 705.55239521 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.3127387409 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.210526316 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8947368421 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.05263157895 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
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: 0.183188999215 0.218282227539 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0623321622519 0.0743258471296 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0441732012364 0.0701772020484 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0981807448771 0.128457276422 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.040614107605 0.0628817314937 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 14.3799401198 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 67.08 48.3550499002 139% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.28 12.5979740519 74% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.88 8.32208582834 83% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 98.500998004 59% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.