"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."
While it may be true that Interview-centered method is superior to observation-centered method, Dr. Karp failed to make a reasonable argument. His evidence proposed were flawed, and the article consists of multiple unwarrant assumption. Thus, the article is not strong enough to dispute Dr. Field work nor debasing observation-centered approach.
First and foremost, Dr. Garp assumes that the interviews' result of his graduate students were valid, but given no evidence to support this. The only information we know about the result of the interviews was that children living in the group of islands in Tertia spend more time talking about their real parents. This sentence alone is full of logical flaws. The author didn't specify the sample size of the interviews. If the team had only asked 10 people, there is a high probability that the only children who were asked happened to talks more about their parents. In addition, the article does not describes how the interview was conducted. If the interviewer asked the children about their family, then the children would inevitably have to talk about their parents, regardless of the one who were taking care of them.
Even if the previous assumption were true, that the interviews was done correctly and its validity is confirmed. Even so, just only because these children were spending more time discussing about their biological parents does not negate the fact that Dr.Field proposed about most children were reared by the entire village. To assumes that the children were not reared by the village just because they talked more about their parents is big assumption with no evidence from Dr. Karp. It might just be the case that the children like to talk about their parents. If the author had given more evidence regarding how the children were actually cared for by their parents, then it would have bolster the article claim.
Last but not least, Dr. Karp biggest flawed was the assumption that the interview-centered approach to be more accurate in understanding cultures, even in other island. This assumption has no supporting evidence at all. It is incorrect to assumes that just because the interview-centered approach had worked in Tertia, it would work elsewhere. Granted that the interview-centered method is more accurate in Tertia, the observation-centered might still be more accurate in other islands. The contextual details of the island's culture might be the factor to determine which approach is more preferable. To say that observation-centered approach will be less accurate compared to interview-centered approach in other island cultures is not convincing.
In conclusion, there are many evidence needed before we can take Dr. Karp article seriously. We need to check the credibility of the interview results, the proof that children were actually spending more time with their parents, and that the interview-centered approach would work elsewhere. If these three questions were answers, the argument would argument would be more sound.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/story/gre-argument-essay-topic-21-outline
----------------------------
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: 482 350
No. of Characters: 2489 1500
No. of Different Words: 209 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.686 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.164 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.087 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 166 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 135 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 100 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.083 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.314 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.33 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.527 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.122 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 371, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...ne is full of logical flaws. The author didnt specify the sample size of the intervie...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 536, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'talk'.
Suggestion: talk
...nly children who were asked happened to talks more about their parents. In addition, ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 602, Rule ID: DOES_X_HAS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'describe'? As 'do' is already inflected, the verb cannot also be inflected.
Suggestion: describe
...ents. In addition, the article does not describes how the interview was conducted. If the...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 602, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'describe'
Suggestion: describe
...ents. In addition, the article does not describes how the interview was conducted. If the...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 255, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Field
...arents does not negate the fact that Dr.Field proposed about most children were reare...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 689, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'bolstered'.
Suggestion: bolstered
...or by their parents, then it would have bolster the article claim. Last but not leas...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 26, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun evidence seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much evidence', 'a good deal of evidence'.
Suggestion: much evidence; a good deal of evidence
...convincing. In conclusion, there are many evidence needed before we can take Dr. Karp arti...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 336, Rule ID: PHRASE_REPETITION[1]
Message: This phrase is duplicated. You should probably leave only 'argument would'.
Suggestion: argument would
...these three questions were answers, the argument would argument would be more sound.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, if, may, regarding, so, still, then, thus, while, even so, in addition, in conclusion, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2549.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 480.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31041666667 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68069463864 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14448853706 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.44375 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 778.5 705.55239521 110% => 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: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.8571614188 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.208333333 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.08333333333 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.228194328643 0.218282227539 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0711146405484 0.0743258471296 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0475870030901 0.0701772020484 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134920752646 0.128457276422 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.046373253773 0.0628817314937 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.