"Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia show that these children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. This research of mine proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is invalid and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid as well. The interview-centered method that my team of graduate students is currently using in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The author concludes that the article written by Dr. Karp about his observation on Tertia child rearing-tradition is incorrect because the children were not talking much about the other adults in the village. However, the author supports his argument with three assumption that, if not substantined, dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument.
First of all, the author’s claim is not warrented and his institutions about proving Dr. Karp wrong was just based on questioning the children from the Tertia society is overly persuasive. Furthermore, the author does not provide any number of children that has been questioned or the age group of the sample he interviewed. There is another possibility about the kind of question being asked, and the type of questionnaire framed keeping in mind that the kids from the community may feel easy to answer. In case if any of the about mentioned assumption are correct the whole procedure of the interviews might be conducted on the basis of bias and the author assumption are held incorrect.
Second of all, the interview has been conducted on a group of children that consisted some kids from the Tertia community. Therefore, there is a probability that the percentage of children interviewed from Tertia group might be less and the general opinion of the children is considered by the author. It is likely that some children does not open up near complete stranger and feel terrified to talk and answer to the questionnaire and significantly some might talk more about the other villagers and some might speak more about their biological parents. If either case is true, then the author’s contention that raised negative comments on the research and finding of Dr. Karp can be nullified and does not hold water.
Finally, The author talks about the negative findings of observation-centred research and boast his interview-centred method as a genuine procedure that is yielding the true findings and conclusions. Perhaps, if the observation of Dr. Karp is conducted only on the community of the Tertia there is a great possibility that his conclusion may be counted as true and the interview that the author conducted has a mixture of children that included a part of the Tertia group. Apart from that, there are many possibilities that showed observing things have been used to discover many such theories. For example, the whole formation of the earth does not have a piece of live evidence but the observational theories have proved the Big Bang theory. If either of these scenarios is true, then the author claim that the insight provided by Dr. Karp are incorrect may be considered as a persuasive statement.
In conclusion, it is possible that the author have come to a conclusion based on his own assumptions. However, as it stand now, the argument relies on three unfounded assumptions that render its conclusion unpersuasive at best and specious at worst. Thus, the author has to provide additional evidence that support his statement that says rather than observing the behaviour, talking and interviewing children was the most successful way to figure of the behaviour and accurately understand the child-rearing tradition followed by the people of Tertia.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 10 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 526 350
No. of Characters: 2658 1500
No. of Different Words: 230 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.789 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.053 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.94 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 182 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 142 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 115 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 79 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 29.222 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.528 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.889 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.356 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.558 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.085 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 263, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'assumption' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'assumptions'.
Suggestion: assumptions
...author supports his argument with three assumption that, if not substantined, dramatically...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, so, then, therefore, thus, apart from, as to, for example, in conclusion, kind of, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2715.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 526.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16159695817 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78901763229 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00694654226 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 241.0 204.123752495 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.458174904943 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 827.1 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 22.8473053892 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 52.1932839443 57.8364921388 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 150.833333333 119.503703932 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.2222222222 23.324526521 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.61111111111 5.70786347227 151% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.209325285493 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0715545698534 0.0743258471296 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0593777180727 0.0701772020484 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130297460606 0.128457276422 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0261743501001 0.0628817314937 42% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 14.3799401198 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 48.3550499002 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.24 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 98.500998004 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.1389221557 122% => 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.