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.
In the researches conducted on the island of Tertia, disparate results came into picture giving no vivid conclusion on the matter of child-rearing. The author stands his ground by throwing evidence in form of research conducted by two different doctors, both yielding a different result and hence failed to report a generalized outcome. However, the author’s claims does not hold good under certain situations.
First of all, how reliable of a study was conducted by Dr. Field to lay down a statement saying that children were reared by the entire village? In other words, the first step to gain meaningful insight on the matter is to consider the mode of research Dr. Field adopted, that is observation-centered. The research conducted by Dr. Field fails to offer any form of demographics on whether his observations are correct but a mere observation to stand its ground. It could be possible that the examination carried out by him over the island of Telia be incorrect as the outcome of his research is just stating what he sees but fails to take into account various other factors which might be concealed within the culture of the residents of the island. The culture could be based on living in harmony and with highly gregarious people who readily inter-twin with each other having much love and affection for all the children of the island, which would clearly not be a part of Dr. Field’s study. Hence, his works may be considered futile.
On the other hand, Dr. Karp takes a different approach to perform his inspection by going down the survey route. His interview could be profound in the sense that it extracts knowledge about the islands culture right from the inhabitants themselves. However, he again fails to provide acknowledgement about the people whom he surveyed. For all we know, he could have surveyed children themselves who are not much of the experienced ones among the habitants of the island so possibly the wrong people to ask questions to in order to make inference. Also, Dr. Karp falls through the same spiral as of Dr. Field in sense that he does not provide any form of data as to how many people were interviewed in his study. It could be a small part of the island which generally hold a different view of their culture which hinders the success of his research. It should also be taken into account that, the validity of the statements given by the inhabitants also cannot be relied upon to be completely true. This could also affect Dr. Karp’s conclusion.
In conclusion, the statements of the argument provided by the author as it stands now is flawed. In its partial deliverance, both studies return inadequate results which cannot by used to land a conclusion. If however, some form of evidence is provided by researchers in the form of statistical data and numbers, we could possibly land on a closure. Until then, we have to hold our hands for further studies to present us with valid and credible conclusions.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-essays/following-appeared-memorandum-ge…
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 507 350
No. of Characters: 2406 1500
No. of Different Words: 249 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.745 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.746 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.678 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 166 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 124 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.143 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.917 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.762 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.3 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.474 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.128 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 317, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
...orm of statistical data and numbers, we could possibly land on a closure. Until then, we have ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, may, so, then, as to, in conclusion, first of all, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 89.0 55.5748502994 160% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2472.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 507.0 441.139720559 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87573964497 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74517233601 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81020446989 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 253.0 204.123752495 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.499013806706 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 747.9 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.2491715511 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.714285714 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1428571429 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.80952380952 5.70786347227 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.175534547963 0.218282227539 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0541584655685 0.0743258471296 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0471416296706 0.0701772020484 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0945420351565 0.128457276422 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0602865671643 0.0628817314937 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.32 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 98.500998004 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.