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 the

Essay topics:

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 the group of islands which included Tertia, 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.

Dr. Karp says that his interviews with the children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia have proven Dr. Field’s conclusion about the Tertian village’s rearing culture to be invalid. This argument is rife with holes and assumptions which have led to Dr. Karp’s conclusion about Dr. Field’s observation.

Firstly, Dr. Field visited the island of Tertia twenty years ago. Based on his observation at that time he concluded that children in Tertia were reared by the entire village rather than their own biological parents. Dr. Karp says that this conclusion is invalid as he had recently taken interviews with the children of the group of islands which included Tertia. It may happen that over the time span of twenty years, the rearing traditions of the people of Tertia have changed. Now, it may be the case that the children are reared by their biological parents rather than the entire village. Thus, the author has not provided any evidence about do the people of Tertia still follow the same rearing tradition or not. Thus if these assumptions are considered then they weaken the author’s argument.

Furthermore, Dr. Karp conducted an interview which consisted of five islands of which one was Tertia. It may happen that the children of all the other islands spend their time with their biological parents and not with the other adults of the village and so Dr. Karp might have concluded that the children of these islands spend more time with their biological parents. Moreover, Dr. Karp has not provided any evidence as to how many children from Tertia were a part of the interview. It could be that maximum children in the interview were a part of other islands. Hence, these points must not be considered for coming to a conclusion about the children of Tertia and proving Dr. Field wrong.

Dr. Karp also says that his team of graduates is currently using the interview-centered method for knowing more about the rearing traditions of Tertia and other villages. He does not provide any information about the efficiency of his team or how well can they perform these interviews. Because Dr. Karp’s team consists of students and not experienced people. It can happen that their results from these interviews are not up to the mark and they can also be completely invalid.
Thus, if we consider all the above stated points then we can say that Dr. Karp has not considered several instances of doubts which could weaken his own conclusion. Therefore, if we need to be sure of the rearing traditions of Tertia then it would require to take into account all the above mentioned flaws in the argument. So, Dr. Karp’s argument has many flaws and assumptions and thus he cannot prove Dr. Field’s observational conclusions to be false.

Average: 6 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:


Grammar and spelling errors:
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...llow the same rearing tradition or not. Thus if these assumptions are considered the...
Line 8, column 256, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'taking'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'require' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: taking
...ditions of Tertia then it would require to take into account all the above mentioned fl...

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, may, moreover, so, still, then, therefore, thus, well, as to

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 28.8173652695 163% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2310.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 467.0 441.139720559 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94646680942 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64867537961 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60677770366 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.408993576017 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 677.7 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.8761460102 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.0 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2380952381 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.04761904762 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 14.0 4.67664670659 299% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.340222281616 0.218282227539 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.117626596861 0.0743258471296 158% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0959603757049 0.0701772020484 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.196462604857 0.128457276422 153% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0962469102518 0.0628817314937 153% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.33 8.32208582834 88% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 98.500998004 78% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.

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: 21 15
No. of Words: 467 350
No. of Characters: 2247 1500
No. of Different Words: 181 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.649 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.812 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.506 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 154 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.238 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.904 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.361 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.507 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.17 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5