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.
The author has presented two case studies conducted in order to study the child-rearing practices in Tertia. The first research was carried out twenty years ago and made use of observations. The current study was conducted by interviewing a set of people. Results say that the former study inferred that children were reared by the entire village, however, the latter says children spent more time talking about their biological parents. Based on this, Dr. Karp decides that the initial study was invalid and some anthropologists recommend to follow the interview based technique in the future. Before following this recommendation, there are some queries which need to be addressed.
First of all, there is a long time difference of about twenty years between the two studies conducted. These many years are more than enough for people to bring in many changes in their child-rearing techniques. It can be quite possible that biological parents realized that they should be giving more time to their children on encountering certain problems and mended their ways. Thus, the author needs to provide a thorough background of the upbringing methods in both the cases.
Secondly, in both the researches the method of study is distinct. Dr. Field relied on observations whereas Dr. Karp interviewed his subjects. In the initial study, it is necessary to know what were the parameters or observations noted and on what basis did he draw his inference. Also, it is essential to know whether the people observed or interviewed represented various sections of Tertian culture in both scenarios. For the recent research by Dr. Karp, it is imperative to know what were the questions asked during the interview sessions. In some cases, the questions are designed in such a way that unknowingly subjects tend to give a particular answer for their own benefit.
Dr. Karp has directly asserted that Dr. Field’s results are invalid without considering various aspects. Considering the concerns raised above, it is quite possible that both studies were correct in their own ways. Therefore, without conducting a comprehensive review of both the studies and analyzing the questions raised, it would not be right to follow the conclusion of only being dependent on interview-centric techniques for future research.
Comments
e-rater score report
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 368 350
No. of Characters: 1894 1500
No. of Different Words: 193 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.38 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.147 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.837 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 139 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 74 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.368 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.293 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.474 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.29 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.483 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.061 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 191, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...years ago and made use of observations. The current study was conducted by intervie...
^^^
Line 1, column 530, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'recommend following'.
Suggestion: recommend following
...dy was invalid and some anthropologists recommend to follow the interview based technique in the fu...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, whereas, talking about, first of all, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.9520958084 31% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 16.3942115768 18% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1944.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 368.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.28260869565 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37987740619 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91312459329 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538043478261 0.468620217663 115% => OK
syllable_count: 583.2 705.55239521 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.6075184981 57.8364921388 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.315789474 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3684210526 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.10526315789 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
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 : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 15.0 4.67664670659 321% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.219330929338 0.218282227539 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0647933922592 0.0743258471296 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0498699805552 0.0701772020484 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11996450095 0.128457276422 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0503332042912 0.0628817314937 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.13 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.