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 of this argument, refering to some anthropologists, recommends that interview-centered method be followed as the methodology of future researches that are centered around the study of children in the island of Tertia. The author comes to this conclusion by citing the results of Dr. Karp which showed that, the children in the group of islands surveyed spent more time talking about their biological parents and hence were reared by the parents rather than collective raising by the society. Before the validity of the recommendation can be assessed, the author must provide persuasive answers to three questions.
. Firstly, are the studies done in two time frames, twenty years apart, even comparable? It may be possible that, the islands have significantly changed over such a long period of time with respect to social circumstances, education level, and several other aspects of the society that may be in close association with the upbringing of the children. It is possible that, people in the past prefered to live in close groups and spaces which, in contrast, may have changed to living in isolated families. The population of the islands may have fallen giving rise to fewer contact between the families living there. The recommendation clearly falls short of plausibilty, should the author of this argument fail to provide the answer to whether the patterns of culture, attitudes and living conditions of people from two different points of time have changed in the period.
Secondly, does the study of the group of islands including Tertia, represents Tertia alone unbiasedly? It may be possible that, Tertia is quite different to other islands included in the research in terms of societal cultures and several other circumstances. It is also possible that, Tertia is relatively a small island, and because of the size, people are more closely spaced in housings and hence the intimacy and children's talking about other adults of the society. For example, because of the smaller size, the territories of the families may overlap and thus a collective rearing of a child in the society is possible. If the author fails to provide answers to the question about the nature of the society, the persuasiveness of the recommendation sharply falls.
Thirdly, how significant is the word 'some' in relation to the number of the anthropologists suggesting the idea of using the interview-centered approach? It may be possible that, the number is not significant at all; alternatively, the number of anthropologists advocating the other method may be greater. Just from the suggestions of few, an all-encompassing generalization doesn't sound too convincing.
In conclusion, the recommendation may sound persuasive at first sight, upon careful analysis is rife with assumptions and incomplete with evidences. However, the author should provide plausible answers to the questions raised in above paragraphs before the recommendation can be held true, else, it just falls short of meat.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 10 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 477 350
No. of Characters: 2464 1500
No. of Different Words: 221 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.673 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.166 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.045 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 189 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 140 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 91 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.616 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.778 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.337 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.514 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.1 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 625, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...e persuasive answers to three questions . Firstly, are the studies done in two ti...
^^
Line 2, column 171, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
... significantly changed over such a long period of time with respect to social circumstances, e...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 375, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...few, an all-encompassing generalization doesnt sound too convincing. In conclusion, ...
^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ue, else, it just falls short of meat.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, for example, in conclusion, in contrast, talking about, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 83.0 55.5748502994 149% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2530.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 477.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30398322851 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67336384929 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11620271326 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.488469601677 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 788.4 705.55239521 112% => 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: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.0335272211 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.555555556 119.503703932 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.5 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 5.70786347227 158% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.140252226419 0.218282227539 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.049101433961 0.0743258471296 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0484363598135 0.0701772020484 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0769691501073 0.128457276422 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0476920019401 0.0628817314937 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.8 14.3799401198 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.3550499002 76% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.0 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 98.500998004 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.