The following appeared in an article written by Dr.Krap, an anthropologist.
Twenty year ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from observation 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 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 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 order island cultures.
The argument that concluded the theory of observation-centered approach is invalid by the interview-centered method is not entirely and logically convincing because it is based on a few unproven assumptions.
The first piece of evidence that we would need in order to evaluate Dr. Krap claims that the culture of Tertia in twenty years ago is the same with now. However, the culture through these years can be changed by various parameters. For example, in Tertia, some individuals came to this island, and then people of island imitated some cultures, so they did different style to cultivate their children. Therefore, the result of Dr. Field must be dissimilar with Dr. Krap in terms of their way of parenting children.
Another piece of evidence that might help us evaluate this claim involves the location where Dr. Field had some observations to conclude that the children have been reared by an entire village is the island of Tertia. Nevertheless, Dr. Krap’s conclusion by interviewing from children in the group of islands with Tertian village, so this approach from Dr.Krap’s method weaken this conclusion because some children were chosen by the interviewer from around island were not living in Tertian village. Therefore, these children were nurtured by their parents, and children who lived in Tertia nurtured communally.
In order to fully evaluate this article, we would also need to know about the questions were inquired by questionerس how to determine their biological parents nurtured children or not. For example, the questions were asked from the children, and they answered they were nurtured by their parents or others, so this conclusion have flaws since this approach from children cannot be accurate to conclude a method for parenting behavior.
In the final analysis, Dr. Karp's method cannot be taken to be correct since, as it was clarified above, it rests on a concatenation of premises all explainable in other ways as well. Dr. Karp's method can only be accepted if all the above-mentioned alternative explanations are rejected.
In the final analysis, the recommendation cannot be taken to be correct since, as it was clarified, it rests on a concatenation of premises all explainable in other ways as well. Dr. Karp's method can only be accepted if all the above-mentioned alternative explanations are rejected.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 379 350
No. of Characters: 1929 1500
No. of Different Words: 168 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.412 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.09 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.963 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 142 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 108 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 84 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.071 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.588 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.857 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.371 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.675 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.141 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 360, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Krap&apos
...rtian village, so this approach from Dr.Krap's method weaken this conclusion because...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, nevertheless, so, then, therefore, well, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1984.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 378.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.24867724868 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40933352052 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09044081726 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 204.123752495 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.465608465608 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 618.3 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.3835681251 57.8364921388 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.714285714 119.503703932 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.0 23.324526521 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.57142857143 5.70786347227 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.258981853072 0.218282227539 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0926509436598 0.0743258471296 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0770769739495 0.0701772020484 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120166336414 0.128457276422 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104133541088 0.0628817314937 166% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.8 14.3799401198 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.47 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.48 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.