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 prompt presents an article by Dr. Karp that states that the author has innovated a new method of anthromometric studies in an island called Tertia and how the author is claiming that his method invalidates the work of another anthropologist, Dr. Field. The author has based his conclusion on the assumptions that his findings differ from that of Dr. Field. However, there are some unstated assumptions in this argument that need to be clarfied for the argument to be valid.
First of all, Dr. Karp is assuming that there is no difference in a 20-year early period and the present-day world. The author does not take into account the effect of this time difference. A lot of changes could have occurred at that time. It is possible that, at that time, the children did used to get reared up by the whole village. This scenario may have evolved over time. the situations may not be roughly comparable. So, to bluntly reject someone's conclusion without taking a crucial element like time into account is just unwise. So, if the time-factor has played a role into this transformation, then the author's invalidation about Dr. Field's studies might be invalid.
Secondly, the author is assuming that based on his interviews with the children, he has enough data to proceed. Dr. Karp did not present statistics on how many children he has interviewed. It is probable that he might have worked with 1% or 5% of the whole population. So, can we base a conclusion on this insignificant amount of data? If this holds truth that Dr. Karp only talked with a minor portion of the children, then the claims fall thin.
Lastly, the author is very rapid to presume that he has invented an anthropometric procedure of higher accuracy. What are the evidence to that? If a new method is being tasted for its performance, lots of criteria need to be examined. If the inventor himself is claiming the method to be a better one without presenting proper evidence for the claim, then there is no base to justify that. It could be possible that Dr. Karp's method was, in fact, less accurate. So, if this case holds merit, then the author's claims are in much doubt.
In conclusion, the reasonings and conclusion made by the author stands faulty to this point. There have been lots of unwarranted assumptions and scarcity of evidence to back up the claims. More logically sound reasoning along with statistics is required for this to be a valid claim.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 422 350
No. of Characters: 1959 1500
No. of Different Words: 203 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.532 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.642 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.644 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 133 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 68 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.583 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.873 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.583 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.28 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.484 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.104 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 294, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'use'
Suggestion: use
...le that, at that time, the children did used to get reared up by the whole village. ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 380, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...is scenario may have evolved over time. the situations may not be roughly comparabl...
^^^
Line 5, column 616, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...role into this transformation, then the authors invalidation about Dr. Fields studies m...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 149, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...acy. What are the evidence to that? If a new method is being tasted for its perfo...
^^
Line 13, column 298, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...lf is claiming the method to be a better one without presenting proper evidence f...
^^
Line 13, column 443, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e possible that Dr. Karps method was, in fact, less accurate. So, if this case ho...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2025.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 422.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.79857819905 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53239876712 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7080912515 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495260663507 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 612.9 705.55239521 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.8729802954 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.0 119.503703932 68% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.88 23.324526521 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.52 5.70786347227 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 16.0 4.67664670659 342% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.167012019089 0.218282227539 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0428576059604 0.0743258471296 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0728063163894 0.0701772020484 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0985531301083 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0982694705657 0.0628817314937 156% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.6 14.3799401198 67% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 48.3550499002 132% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 12.197005988 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.26 12.5979740519 81% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.8 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.