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.
When any hypothesis is made, it must be validated by a considerable number of observations, and there should be a lot of trial and error to be done, to come to conclusion that the hypothesis is true, and can be stated as fact. Even regarding what the author is recommending, there is insufficient data to validate that the interview-based conclusion made by Dr. Karp is valid. The author blatantly puts it outright that the future research on the child rearing in village of tertia must be conducted via the interview centered method.
The author clearly mentions in the first part of the statement that Dr. Field, who is a noted anthropologist, has made the study in the village of Tertia, only with the approach of studying the Tertian culture. Whereas Dr. Karp, made his study on a group of islands, where even Tertia village play a part. I would like to emphasize that Dr. Karp’s study was not entirely and solely on the village of Tertia, and his observation can be skewed due to the observations from the other villages. To make it clearer, or substantiate his observation, the study should have been only on the village of Tertia, to make any conclusion about Tertian culture. I believe that the anthropologists ignorantly and unreasonably generalized his observation, and openly and blatantly repudiated the conclusion made by Dr. Field.
Furthermore, the two anthropologists used different methods, and the author in statement failed to provide data to substantiate the conclusion. The statement made by Dr. Karp could have been substantiated and would have supported, only if they provided data about the population, and the family size, or the educational background of the children of the villages studied. There is a higher possibility that the village size of Tertia is very small, and thus the kids are more attached, and all the families behave and are like joint families. And thus, the conclusion made by Dr.Field could have been right, the method he used is observation, rather than merely talking a bunch of people who might not represent the entire village.
Whereas Dr. Karp, who made his study on a group of villages. And the conclusion he made was unreasonably generalized to Tertia village. The author failed to provide data about what all are the other villages that was in the study, the population of each village, and the number of children in each family, and if all the other villages behaved like Tertia village. The conclusion could have been validated if the author provided the aforementioned data. And Dr. Karp mentions that he used the interview method, that means that there were a group of people who were set to sit in the interview, the number of people who were interviewed might not represent the village’s opinion, and there is an equal possibility that people from other villages had different opinion than people from Tertia. Considering all the above scenarios, its unjust and totally unreasonable to reject Dr. Field’s conclusion regarding the child rearing in Tertia village.
The author in the last part also mentions that 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. I consider this to be biased opinion by some anthropologists, and to even support the interview-based method they should be substantiated by the above-mentioned data.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 564 350
No. of Characters: 2806 1500
No. of Different Words: 201 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.873 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.975 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.981 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 193 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 139 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 102 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 76 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.2 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.374 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.37 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.561 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.142 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 580, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Field
...es. And thus, the conclusion made by Dr.Field could have been right, the method he us...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, if, regarding, so, thus, whereas
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 11.1786427146 215% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 21.0 13.6137724551 154% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 73.0 55.5748502994 131% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2884.0 2260.96107784 128% => OK
No of words: 563.0 441.139720559 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12255772647 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87110059796 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0780292469 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.388987566607 0.468620217663 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 906.3 705.55239521 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 17.0 1.67365269461 1016% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 63.4085759184 57.8364921388 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.2 119.503703932 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.15 23.324526521 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.9 5.70786347227 51% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.287967486545 0.218282227539 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0961162041816 0.0743258471296 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0705302059096 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154485961843 0.128457276422 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104599203156 0.0628817314937 166% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.8 14.3799401198 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 48.3550499002 89% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => 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.