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 examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
Dr. Karp’s article is attempting to make two claims based on his work on Tertia Island. She believes that Dr. Field’s conclusions about child-rearing norms are false, and that his observation-centered approach is invalid. These statements are based on fallacious logic regarding research methodology. Dr. Karp does not authenticate her inferences by delineating proof. The exact opposite results could be proven, or the work and methods of both doctors may be faulty.
Of prime importance is for Dr. Karp to review the application of observation-based approach and interview-based approach to Tertia. Were study subjects a representative sample of the entire island? What were the ages of the children observed or interviewed? What was the duration and condition of observations or interviews? If either study did not use a representative sample, no conclusions can be made about the village as a whole. Additionally, the conditions of the observation or interviews can bias results, based on the relationship between researcher and participant. If participants are not aware they are being observed, more accurate information may be gained. If the interview questions are phrased in a leading way, or if the children become confused or bored by the exchange, this could impact results. Thus, the methods of both doctors could be valid, but simply applied on Tertia in a flawed way.
Secondarily, Dr. Karp assumes that if her results appear to contradict Dr. Field’s work, he must be wrong and she right. In reality, perhaps the doctors have discovered nuances of child-rearing culture that have not been realized before. For example, although the village children may spend time with a range of adults on the island, their relationship with biological parents is still most sacred. Time spent with offspring may not impact their character development as much as brief moments of role modeling by a parent. In such condition, the work and documentation of both doctors may be legitimate, but a bridging survey is necessary to make sense of the results.
Lastly, Dr. Karp theorizes that her work is universally applicable. She assumes that child-rearing patterns remain the same as they were 20 years ago, and that her conclusions about such patterns can be applied to island cultures as a whole. The former is a careless presumption, given quickly modernizing societies around the world. The later seems plausible due to globalization and the melding of cultures, yet does not match with the rigor and sophistication that usually characterizes the work of anthropologists.
Hopefully Dr. Karp’s article goes on to evince her suppositions about research methods, child-rearing patterns, and application of results. If not, the argument has much to be desired. There are wide gaps in the connections she attempts to make between the approaches and results of Dr. Field and her own. Without further evidence, fellow researchers may find that none or all of the factors in consideration are valid.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 477 350
No. of Characters: 2461 1500
No. of Different Words: 241 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.673 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.159 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.144 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 175 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 140 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 67 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.925 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.481 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.258 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.445 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.081 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 134, Rule ID: WERE_VBB[2]
Message: Did you mean 'where' or 'we'?
Suggestion: Where; We
...and interview-based approach to Tertia. Were study subjects a representative sample ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 721, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a leading way" with adverb for "leading"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... If the interview questions are phrased in a leading way, or if the children become confused or ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 907, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a flawed way" with adverb for "flawed"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... be valid, but simply applied on Tertia in a flawed way. Secondarily, Dr. Karp assumes that ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, lastly, may, regarding, second, so, still, then, thus, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 11.1786427146 206% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2561.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 477.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36897274633 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67336384929 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.26665372368 2.78398813304 117% => OK
Unique words: 249.0 204.123752495 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.522012578616 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 771.3 705.55239521 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.67365269461 478% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.0661638601 57.8364921388 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.8518518519 119.503703932 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6666666667 23.324526521 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.77777777778 5.70786347227 49% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 17.0 4.67664670659 364% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.193417369753 0.218282227539 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0543960554439 0.0743258471296 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0560759367893 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113899202805 0.128457276422 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0354190868181 0.0628817314937 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.57 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.11 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 140.0 98.500998004 142% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => 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.