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.
Antropologist conclude that more interview-centered surveys must be conducted to obtain precise information on Tertian child-rearing practice. They come to this conclusion based on difference between the finding of observation-centered Dr. Field research and interview-centered Dr. Karp research. The author assertion might be true, but these three questions must be answered to determine the credibility of recommendation.
First of all, did Dr. Field observe whole Tertia island? It is possible that he observed only a few selcted areas. These areas might have more number of orphans and street-children. Not having their parents; they are coherently fed and taken care by generous society people but the children having their parents are reared by their own guardians. Also, it is possible that Dr. Field observed families who are insolvent and are dependent on community people to raise their children. If any of these is true, then the conclusion of the recommendation does not hold water.
Secondly, Did Dr. Karp interviewed enough Tertian children? Perhaps he might have interviewed more chilren from other island rather than Tertia where people are not as kind and gregarious as Tertian people. Despite parents penury they must feed their children even if they are not grown properly. It might also be possible that the people of other island are rich and independent enough to guard their children properly. If any of these scenarios have merit, then the argument is significantly weakened.
Finally, are the answers given py the children immaculate? Dr. Karp might have interviewed rich children whose every demands are being fuilfilled. So they must not talk about other people to fulfil their needs. Also, the children were being manipulated by asking only the questions of their biological parents. So the children ignorantly talked often about their biological parents. If this is the case, then persuasiveness of the recommendation is hindered.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to provide answer to these three questions (based on systematic study approach), then the viability of the recommendation can fully be evaluated.
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: 22 15
No. of Words: 350 350
No. of Characters: 1855 1500
No. of Different Words: 176 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.325 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.3 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.088 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 128 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 100 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.909 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.656 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.727 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.293 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.293 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.067 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 105, Rule ID: WHOSE_DT[5]
Message: Did you mean 'who's'?
Suggestion: who's
...rp might have interviewed rich children whose every demands are being fuilfilled. So ...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 338, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[9]
Message: The adverb 'often' is usually put before the verb 'talked'.
Suggestion: often talked
...cal parents. So the children ignorantly talked often about their biological parents. If this...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, second, secondly, so, then, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1901.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 350.0 441.139720559 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.43142857143 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32530772707 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16778297546 2.78398813304 114% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.514285714286 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 578.7 705.55239521 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.7105328638 57.8364921388 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.4090909091 119.503703932 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.9090909091 23.324526521 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.90909090909 5.70786347227 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.191842714 0.218282227539 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0596641702707 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0636716772249 0.0701772020484 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105347310019 0.128457276422 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0521849731127 0.0628817314937 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.3799401198 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 48.3550499002 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => 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.