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.
According to the given prompt, some anthropologists are of the opinion that in order to obtain accurate information on Tertian child-rearing practices, future research on the subject should be done via the interview-centered method. The reason for such an assertion is because the study conducted by Dr. Karp seems more convincing than the study conducted by Dr. Field and the arguer has provided evidence to support his claim. These evidence seem compelling at the first glance, although a closer examination might unearth a few alternate possibilities, which might undermine the arguer's position.
Firstly, the arguer has mentioned that Dr. Karp had recently visited a group of islands that also included Tertia and conducted an interview-centered approach to study child-rearing practices. Dr. Karp's findings are exactly opposite of Dr. Field's findings, hence the arguer is of the opinion that Dr. Field's study is incorrect. Such an assertion is incorrect because the arguer has stated that Dr. Karp conducted a study on a group of islands, not just Tertia. It could be possible that child rearing activities are different in Tertia. It could be possible that an aggregate of all the observations suggests that Dr. Karp's study is correct, but if we isolate Tertia, it may happen that Dr. Field's assertion was true. If such a case holds substance, then it would undermine the arguer's assertion that the study conducted by Dr. Field was incorrect.
Secondly, the anthropologists are of the opinion that in order to obtain accurate results about child-rearing activities in Tertia, an interview-centered approach should be adopted. There is a genralization made here which might be incorrect. The interview-centered approach was used for many islands including Tertia, but the anthropologists suggest that the interview-centered approach should be used when Tertia is being solely studied. Such a genralization might not hold true, since the arguer has failed to provide evidence about similarities between other group of islands and Tertia. It may be the case that when interview-centered approach is used to study child-rearing practices in Tertia alone, it gives results opposite to what was achieved by Dr. Karp. This could suggest that Dr. Field's study about child-rearing practices in Tertia were indeed correct.
Lastly, the arguer has stated that the study conducted by Dr. Field and Dr. Karp was seperated by a timespan of twenty-years. Such a timespan is a long time and it may be the case that the behavior of the people of Tertia may have evolved. It might be the case that Dr. Field's study was true twenty-years ago, but in the present scenario, Dr. Karp's study holds true. This would suggest that an observation-centered approach is not an incorrect way of conducting study, and it might be possible that if an observation-centered approach is employed, it gives similar results to an interview-centered approach. If this is the case, then it could be stated that the arguer has wrongly undermined the accuracy of observation-centered approach.
In sum, the evidence provided by the arguer are dubious and erroneous. They point to several alternate possibilities that undermine the arguer's position. As a result, without substantial evidence, it would be difficult to believe the point, made by the arguer, in the above prompt.
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: 23 15
No. of Words: 533 350
No. of Characters: 2767 1500
No. of Different Words: 189 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.805 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.191 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.306 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 199 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 154 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 111 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 68 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.174 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.155 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.609 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.376 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.557 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.124 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 267, Rule ID: REASON_IS_BECAUSE[1]
Message: Probably an incorrect phrase. Use 'the reason 'is that''.
Suggestion: is that
...ethod. The reason for such an assertion is because the study conducted by Dr. Karp seems m...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 779, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguers'' or 'arguer's'?
Suggestion: arguers'; arguer's
... substance, then it would undermine the arguers assertion that the study conducted by D...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 37.0 19.6327345309 188% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 25.0 13.6137724551 184% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2821.0 2260.96107784 125% => OK
No of words: 533.0 441.139720559 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29268292683 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80487177365 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.35493448483 2.78398813304 121% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.3808630394 0.468620217663 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 845.1 705.55239521 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.5953158843 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.652173913 119.503703932 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1739130435 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.91304347826 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.336848962316 0.218282227539 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.113338745154 0.0743258471296 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0811101732282 0.0701772020484 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192910877092 0.128457276422 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.111296334635 0.0628817314937 177% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.71 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.