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.
The given article is written by an anthropologist Dr. Karp where she/he invalidates the findings of a study conducted by the noted anthropologist Dr. Field. Dr. Karp disappoves of the observation-centric approches to study anthroplogy and promotes interview-centric approach. On perusal of the articles, the following lapses in the argument were found.
Dr. Karp’s studies the childing rearing traditions in the island of Tertia, which also was the subject of Dr. Field’s study twenty years ago. The first patent lapse in evidence lies in this gap between two time periods. Dr. Field found that the children were reared by the village and Dr. Karp assumes otherwise. Dr. karp’s article does not mention anything about the traditions. The children interviewed then may have become parents now. The traditions would have chanegd in the past two decades. There is no discussion on the evolution of the tradition. In case, the traditions would have evolved, this evidence woulfd strengthen Dr. Karp’s claim.
The seond gap lies in the methodology and consequent findings of the study. Dr. Field concluded that the children were reared by the entire village and not just the parents. On the other hand, Dr. Karp found that the children spoke more about the biological parents rather than villagers. Perhaps the study tool comprised of question focused on their biological parents and less on the villagers and thus ellicted more responses about the parents.
The varied approaches adopted by the two researchers would have their own set of advantages and disadvantages. Sometimes, observational findings may supplement or contradict the responses during the interview. In case, Dr. Karp’s study tool was based focused more on parents and less on the villagers, then it would have led to missing nuances which were reflective of the traditions. Invalidating Dr. Field’s study and the methodology outrightly on the basis of perhaps baised interview tool considerably weaken Dr. Karp’s stand.
Dr. Karp’s study was conducted by her team of graduate students whereas Dr. Field conducted the study own his own. The article claims that Dr. Field was a noted and thus, an expert in the field. Given his eminence, his erudition and way of conducting the study would be far more nuanced than that of fledgling researchers. With all due respect to the students and their intellect, experience would triumph over amateur when it comes to studying a subject like human interactions.
Hence, for the reasons stated above Dr. Karp’s aricle fails to provide a convincing argument.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 24 15
No. of Words: 412 350
No. of Characters: 2108 1500
No. of Different Words: 196 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.505 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.117 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.812 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 146 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.167 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.771 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.417 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.332 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.537 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.084 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, hence, may, so, then, thus, whereas, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2210.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 411.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.37712895377 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50256981431 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00957795228 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.486618004866 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 644.4 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.5795031116 57.8364921388 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.0833333333 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.125 23.324526521 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.79166666667 5.70786347227 49% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.336412989049 0.218282227539 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0994100753674 0.0743258471296 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.108956273511 0.0701772020484 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.175135351988 0.128457276422 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0849180256587 0.0628817314937 135% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.48 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => 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.