The following appeared on the Website Science News Today.
"In a recent survey of more than 5,000 adolescents, the teens who reported eating the most meals with their families were the least likely to use illegal drugs, tobacco, or alcohol. Family meals were also associated with higher grades, better self-esteem, and lower rates of depression. Almost 30 percent of the teens said they ate at least seven meals per week with their families. Clearly, having a high number of family meals keeps teens from engaging in bad behaviors."
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
In the argument, the author concludes that there is a relationship between families eating together and a restraint in teenagers displaying appropriate behavior (these behaviors include using drugs, tobacco and alcohol). He also concludes that there is a relationship between teenagers who have family meals and better grades. He comes to this conclusion by citing the recent survey done on more than five thousand adolescents. While his claim might be true, the author’s conclusions rest on three assumptions that significantly weaken the credibility of his argument.
Firstly, the author assumes without evidence that the recent survey was carried out scientifically. Perhaps the people who may have done this survey were not trained enough for it and even if they did the best they could, it just was not enough. The study done was ambiguous. The author mentions that it was above 5000 people but that could mean 5001 or 10,000 people. The conventional number of people needed in a survey carried out properly could be 15,000. If these cases are true , then the author’s claim holds no water.
Secondly, the author assumes without giving any evidence that there is a causal relationship between people eating meals together and lower rates of depression. Maybe these people have lower rates of depression because the families who eat together carry out some activities like yoga. This particular activity may be the cause of a reduction in depression in the teenagers. Similarly, these families could love going on trips together which may result in lower depression rates among them. So it it possible that eating together and depression may not be correlated. If these scenarios are true, then the author’s conclusion is severely diminished.
Thirdly, the author assumes that when teenagers say something, they actually mean it. It could be that these teenagers are saying these things because they have been urged to do so. They might also say these things because they do not want to bring disgrace to their families. Perhaps some of these teenagers were adopted and if they say that they do not eat up to seven meals with their families, it could call the attention of child protective services which the parents might not love. If these scenarios are true, then the author’s conclusion is severely weakened.
In conclusion, it may be true that there is a causal relationship between families eating together and teenagers behaving seemingly. However, as it stands now, the author’s claims rest on three unwarranted assumptions that weaken its credibility.To bolster the validity of his conclusion, he must address the three assumptions above.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 429 350
No. of Characters: 2176 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.551 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.072 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.619 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 156 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 114 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.652 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.423 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.783 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.319 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.319 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.135 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 369, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... that could mean 5001 or 10,000 people. The conventional number of people needed in...
^^^
Line 2, column 483, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...could be 15,000. If these cases are true , then the author’s claim holds no water....
^^
Line 3, column 494, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: it
...n lower depression rates among them. So it it possible that eating together and depre...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 246, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: To
...assumptions that weaken its credibility.To bolster the validity of his conclusion,...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, similarly, so, then, third, thirdly, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 54.0 28.8173652695 187% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 16.3942115768 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2237.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 428.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22663551402 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.548423998 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75339431983 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.460280373832 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 677.7 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.1649872647 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.2608695652 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6086956522 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.65217391304 5.70786347227 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.143953379119 0.218282227539 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0433445173843 0.0743258471296 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0447925762065 0.0701772020484 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0819001162198 0.128457276422 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0406849659881 0.0628817314937 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.59 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.