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 states that some anthropologists recommend that in order to obtain accurate information on tertian child-rearing practices, an interview-centered method should be employed in the future research of the subject. But, the recommendation is highly dubious as some points have been overlooked which are vital to make it look logically convincing.
Firstly, how relevant are the answers of children in ascertaining the nature of child rearing practices which are prevalent on the island of Tertia? It is stated that during the interviews, children of Tertia spent more time talking about their parents. But, that doesn’t invalidate the observation based results of Dr. field. Children, in general are much more likely to talk about their parents then about strangers. Dr. Karp must have conducted the interview of the adults residing the island as well, for they can give better insight about the child rearing practices that are prevalent on their island, rather than the children who, in no manner, are the sources of credible information .Also, neither of the two scientists considered looking at any previous research that was done on the same topic, they just overlooked any previous studies and jumped to conclusions, which raises the questions on the accuracy of their findings.
Secondly, how accurate is the interview based method? The observation based study of Dr. Field positively suggested that children are reared by the entire village, which is having a much broader scope than the interview based method as the former involved every native of the island rather than just children in the latter method. This makes the interview based method limited in scope and much more prone to errors for it has much smaller sample size, which rather makes it unfit to be used for any further research.
To conclude, the researchers should’ve spent more time to increase the scope and accuracy of the method they employed. Had they done a more meticulous research around this topic, the recommendation could have been much more persuasive.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 331 350
No. of Characters: 1685 1500
No. of Different Words: 166 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.265 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.091 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.693 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 126 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 85 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 37 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.462 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 19.614 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.538 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.351 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.57 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.077 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 325, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'it'?
Suggestion: the; it
...been overlooked which are vital to make the it look logically convincing. Firstly, ...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 332, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'looks'?
Suggestion: looks
...erlooked which are vital to make the it look logically convincing. Firstly, how r...
^^^^
Line 4, column 692, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
... are the sources of credible information .Also, neither of the two scientists cons...
^^
Line 4, column 694, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Also
...re the sources of credible information .Also, neither of the two scientists consider...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, look, second, secondly, so, then, well, in general, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 16.3942115768 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1739.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 330.0 441.139720559 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.2696969697 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26214759535 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78461765786 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 204.123752495 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.515151515152 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 527.4 705.55239521 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 19.7664670659 61% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 120.805945172 57.8364921388 209% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 144.916666667 119.503703932 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.5 23.324526521 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.66666666667 5.70786347227 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.179608071346 0.218282227539 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0664702375748 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0659831656727 0.0701772020484 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0936151337986 0.128457276422 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0604347910432 0.0628817314937 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 14.3799401198 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.33 8.32208582834 112% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.