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.
The following argument is flawd for numerous reasons. In order to fully evaluate this argument, we need to have significant amount of evidence, else the argument could end up much weaker.
The first evidence that we need to discuss is, Dr. Field conducted his study 20 years ago, in those 20 years a lot of things can change in Tertia and other island, maybe some outsides settled in tertia in those 20 years and they introduced their style of living to tertian populations, which might have influenced the local population. Author failed to give any information about what happenend in those 20 years, which weakens the above argument.
Argument also states that Dr. Karp and his team interviewed, children from group of insland which includes Tertia, but it can also happen that other islands have different ways to rear their children. Maybe his team hasn't interviewd children from Tertian chlidren yet. whereas Dr. Field studied was based on only Tertia island. This also weakens the argument. Author need to clarify this point in argument to support his claims.
Finally, Author also need to specify what kind of questions did his team ask children from islands, maybe questions which were asked was different on every island. Maybe some children faked their answers. So, author need to provide further informations about the questions which he asked during the interview, which will give a better picture for his claim.
In conclusion, instead of blatantly rejecting Dr.Fied's conclusion. Dr. Field needs to adress the following evidence in orde to support this claim, else his argument is clearly vague.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: The following argument is flawd for numerous reasons.
Error: flawd Suggestion: flaws
Sentence: The first evidence that we need to discuss is, Dr. Field conducted his study 20 years ago, in those 20 years a lot of things can change in Tertia and other island, maybe some outsides settled in tertia in those 20 years and they introduced their style of living to tertian populations, which might have influenced the local population.
Error: tertian Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: tertia Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: Author failed to give any information about what happenend in those 20 years, which weakens the above argument.
Error: happenend Suggestion: happened
Sentence: Argument also states that Dr. Karp and his team interviewed, children from group of insland which includes Tertia, but it can also happen that other islands have different ways to rear their children.
Error: insland Suggestion: island
Sentence: Maybe his team hasn't interviewd children from Tertian chlidren yet. whereas Dr. Field studied was based on only Tertia island.
Error: chlidren Suggestion: children
Error: interviewd Suggestion: interview
Error: hasn Suggestion: has
Sentence: Dr. Field needs to adress the following evidence in orde to support this claim, else his argument is clearly vague.
Error: adress Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: orde Suggestion: order
---------------------
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: 13 15
No. of Words: 266 350
No. of Characters: 1313 1500
No. of Different Words: 147 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.039 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.936 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.348 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 91 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 67 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 44 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 23 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.462 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.937 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.538 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.376 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.65 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.146 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 217, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hasn't
... to rear their children. Maybe his team hasnt interviewd children from Tertian chlidr...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 270, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Whereas
...ewd children from Tertian chlidren yet. whereas Dr. Field studied was based on only Ter...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 270, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “whereas” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ewd children from Tertian chlidren yet. whereas Dr. Field studied was based on only Ter...
^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 50, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Fieds
...sion, instead of blatantly rejecting Dr.Fieds conclusion. Dr. Field needs to adress t...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, may, so, whereas, in conclusion, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 19.6327345309 31% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1366.0 2260.96107784 60% => OK
No of words: 264.0 441.139720559 60% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.17424242424 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03089032464 4.56307096286 88% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44342552226 2.78398813304 88% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 204.123752495 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.560606060606 0.468620217663 120% => OK
syllable_count: 393.3 705.55239521 56% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => 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: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 78.5142649199 57.8364921388 136% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.5714285714 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8571428571 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.07142857143 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.19812266935 0.218282227539 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0688856939097 0.0743258471296 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.065599638448 0.0701772020484 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103643671401 0.128457276422 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0691747552492 0.0628817314937 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 98.500998004 64% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.