In the given argument, it is stated Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertain village is invalid because of Dr. Karp's recent observations and survey about the Tertain village. So at first glance, the author's argument appeals to be convincing but further reflection reveals that it is rife with holes and assumptions. Stated in this way, the argument fails to consider several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated.
To begin with, the author readily assumes that the conditions and circumstances which were observed by Dr. Field twenty years ago would be the same as they are now in Dr. Karp's research. It is highly possible that the conditions would have been changed. Twenty years before the children in Tertia may have been reared by an entire village rather than their biological parents. The argument could have been clearer if it explicitly stated the population of Tertia village and the conditions back then and now.
In addition to this, the argument claims that just because in Dr. Karp's observation children spent the commensurate amount of time talking about their biological parents so they would have reared them. It is again very weak and absurd claim as this argument does not demonstrate what the children were talking about. Is it not possible that they were criticizing their parents for not paying attention to them? Maybe they were not talking about any positive things about their parents and complaining about them. So to better evaluate Dr. Karp's survey there should be some specific evidence about what the children were talking about.
Finally, there are some questions that need to be answered. How reliable was Dr Karp's survey? What was the question asked in both the surveys? Furthermore, there should be evidences the student's responses and what were their connotations. Is it necessary to go for another survey via an interview-centered method? Is this method effective or it is outdated and there should be some other technique to know abput the actual scenarion in Tertain village.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for above-mentioned reasons and it is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts about the survey, questions that were asked, the scenario and population of the Tertian village and evidences about the surveys.
Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 11 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 394 350
No. of Characters: 2011 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.455 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.104 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.724 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 152 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.762 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.916 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.307 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.307 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.111 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 195, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ertain village. So at first glance, the authors argument appeals to be convincing but f...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, if, may, so, then, therefore, in addition, in conclusion, talking about, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2045.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 394.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19035532995 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45527027702 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78150009273 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494923857868 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 619.2 705.55239521 88% => 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: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.2743482443 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.380952381 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7619047619 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.71428571429 5.70786347227 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.219841877145 0.218282227539 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0657915423799 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.086954106641 0.0701772020484 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0984537531767 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0976758403312 0.0628817314937 155% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => 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.