Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia. Using an observation-centered approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. Recently another anthropologist, Dr. Karp, visited the group of islands that includes Tertia and used the interview-centered method to study child-rearing practices. In the interviews that Dr. Karp conducted with children living in this group of islands, the children spent much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. Dr. Karp decided that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture must be invalid. Some anthropologists recommend that to obtain accurate information on Tertian child-rearing practices, future research on the subject should be conducted via the interview-centered method.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
As pointed out from the paragraph, it recommends that future anthropologists should apply the interview-centric method to acquire accurate information in light of the research results revealed by Dr. Karp. However, several questions should be asked before claiming the recommendation to be valid.
First of all, the research results from Dr. Karp is incompatible with what Dr. Field discovered twenty years ago and these dissimilarities act as the foundation for Dr. Karp to claim that the Dr. Field’s finding to be false. However, there is a huge time gap, about twenty years, between these two researches and it is definitely reasonable that Tertia has evolved their child-raising models along with the time. Therefore, it is highly possible that two research results are both true though they appear with different findings. Indeed, questions about any social changes happening during these twenty years in Tertia, such as the influence from modern society, need to be asked to clarify whether Tertia has undergone any changes that affect their child-raising model significantly.
Secondly, the interview-based model applied by Dr. Karp requires further examination, both in the technique itself as well as the interpretation of the results. Initially, it is unsure how the interview was conducted, so the validity is questionable, since children are easily seduced about certain answers if the interview was not conducted correctly. Additionally, Dr. Karp interpreted that children are mainly raised by their biological parents based on the more talking time about biological parents from the children. However, this interpretation can be easily challenged, in that children may talk more but actually still spend less time with their biological parents. There is no evident correlation between the talk and behaviors from the info provided from the text, so questions about the real behavior should be assessed to evaluate the validity of the interpretation made by Dr. Karp.
Finally, this is premature to contend that the interview method is more effective than the observation method due to the potential flaws mentioned above. In fact, it will be better to apply both methods to dissect different research objectives. For example, adopt the interview for people’s intention, while leveraging the observation for people’s practice and conclude the finding by considering all the data acquired from both methods that can complement each other and perform a more solid conclusion with a more comprehensive understanding.
To sum up, questions about any significant social changes happen in Tertia, and deeper understanding of the interview itself as well as the interpretation are required to ensure the legitimacy of the recommendation.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 15 15
No. of Words: 422 350
No. of Characters: 2278 1500
No. of Different Words: 213 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.532 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.398 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.055 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 172 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 136 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 69 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.133 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.763 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.867 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.349 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.604 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.066 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 786, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...heir child-raising model significantly. Secondly, the interview-based model appl...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 116, Rule ID: BOTH_AS_WELL_AS[1]
Message: Probable usage error. Use 'and' after 'both'.
Suggestion: and
...amination, both in the technique itself as well as the interpretation of the results. Init...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, well, while, for example, in fact, such as, as well as, first of all, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2342.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 422.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.54976303318 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53239876712 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14404525287 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518957345972 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 711.0 705.55239521 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 57.0058086709 57.8364921388 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 156.133333333 119.503703932 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.1333333333 23.324526521 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.2 5.70786347227 196% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => 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: 0.140732743783 0.218282227539 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0460107500467 0.0743258471296 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.039533792222 0.0701772020484 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0706708663294 0.128457276422 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0390955642399 0.0628817314937 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.8 14.3799401198 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.6 48.3550499002 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.21 12.5979740519 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.59 8.32208582834 115% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 98.500998004 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.