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 author asserts that the conclusions drawn form Dr. Field's study are invalid because of the children mainly mentions their parents instead mentioning all their protectors uniformly. However, his argument is not sound and needs to provide supplementary evidence to further support his ideas. He should elaborate on the correlation between offspring's conversation about their parents and nurturing methods of the village. In addition, he should explicitly explain why the observation method is flawed and what advantages the interview-based method possess over it.
First of all, the writer fails to explain the relationship between the children's conversations to their nurturers. Although the village altogether takes care of the child, there may be some natural inclination for children to follow and thus talk more about their biological parents. In this case, concluding that direct parents are the main source of nurturing would be a logical fallacy. Or, there is also the possibility that these children do not exactly know about their genetic parents and conceive their closest adult as their parent. Since they feel intimate with them, it would be natural to become loquacious when they are mentioned. All in all, it would be hasty reasoning to asseverate that this village doesn't take care of the kids as a whole, unless the relation between the conversation rate of parents and nurturing is explained.
Next, even if the conclusion that Dr. Field has drawn is false, it would be unsound to argue that his methods of study is wrong as well. The observation method - even if it may have failed in studying Tertia culture - may be a pertinent method when studying Hawaian culture which is another island with a distinct culture: the method may have failed because of the extraordinary state of Tertia. In addition, Dr. Field might have used this method because it is a prominent one, already used by fellow anthropologists, and is already held as a norm when studying customs of alienated districts. Consequently, concluding the methodology wrong due to the wrong conclusion it draws is also a logical pitfall.
Finally, Dr. Karp fails to address the advantages of using a interview based study. The interview based study could result in the interviewee to shun away and lie about their culture because of the fear of disclosing secrets about their tradition. Furthermore, the interviewer's own opinion about the village may hinder in reporting and researching about the district. Hence, Dr. Karp should supply solid ground for his allegiance that a interview based study will result in a better understanding of the village. Also, he should be able to give reasons why he can generalize the results into cases of other islands since they may be different from each other.
In conclusion, Dr. Karp fails to prove that talking about parents means that they are responsible for raising them, and a wrong conclusion means a wrong method. Last but not least, he should provide additional information about his method of research and why it would be more affective.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 21 15
No. of Words: 499 350
No. of Characters: 2522 1500
No. of Different Words: 239 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.726 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.054 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.754 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 178 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 143 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.762 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.03 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.305 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.522 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.11 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 718, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...asoning to asseverate that this village doesnt take care of the kids as a whole, unles...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 61, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...ails to address the advantages of using a interview based study. The interview ba...
^
Line 7, column 437, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...ly solid ground for his allegiance that a interview based study will result in a ...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, so, thus, well, in addition, in conclusion, talking about, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 28.8173652695 163% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2583.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 498.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18674698795 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72397222731 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80421397186 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 244.0 204.123752495 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.489959839357 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 783.9 705.55239521 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.0213095166 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.0 119.503703932 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7142857143 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.14285714286 5.70786347227 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.108500021253 0.218282227539 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0361851903855 0.0743258471296 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0264859123751 0.0701772020484 38% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0645197761352 0.128457276422 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0189736977729 0.0628817314937 30% => 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: 14.9 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 98.500998004 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.