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.
The author of the passage concludes that the interview-centered method is more effective than observation-centered method. In fact, the autor invalidates that observation-centered approach carried out by Dr. Field. Furthermore, the author has sent his team, with interview centric purpose, for getting more accurate details about it. The justification author provides to bolster his argument is that Dr. Field "observed" that children were raised by an entire village, However, his study interviewed children and they were talking about their parents in majority of the cases. Hence, he invalidated Dr. Field's conclusion and observation. Even though the author has provided many evidence to show that child is raised by their biological parents and observation-centric perspective is invalid, the argument and consequently the conclusion is flawed. Hence, they will weaken the conclusion.
To begin with, the author has stated that he interviewed only children and they were talking about their parents the majority of the time. However, only interviewing children might prove to be a serious mistake. The other people in the village might not help in raising the child directly but provide indirect assistance. For instance, they might be providing support in case of health issues that might add up to a huge sum, or they might be helping the parents in financial conditions, providing them fees to pay to the school. As result, they are not spending much time with the child but in a way they are raising him. Consequently, the child thinks that his or her parents are the only one that are arranging for everything. Hence, he might be talking about his or her biological parents more. Adding to that, the villagers might be providing moral and emotional support. This might prove to be crucial to child even though he is not aware that they are helping their parent in raising him or her.
Furthermore, the author has not mentioned the age group of the children that was interviewed. There might be the case that the children belong to a younger generation and hence favor their parents more during the interview as they might not be aware about the help that other people in the village are providing. Had the author covered a wide range of age groups, the outcome might be different. In fact, it is a possibility that the his interview centric approach might have resulted in that same conclusion as that of Dr. Feild.
Lastly, the author has generalized that interview-centered approach is much more effective and precised than observation-centered approach. However this might be seriously flawed. There is a possibility that children are biased during an interview. However, observation can't be biased. Furthermore, there might be the case where the author coincidentally interviewed only those children whose parents don't have very good relation with other people in the village. However, while observing, one always looks at the bigger picture. Hence, the details captured might be greater when observation-centered approach is prefered rather than interview-centered approach.
Hence, to conclude, all the above points stated undermine the authors argument. In fact, there might many more flaws that can be exploited to further undermine the conclusion.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 11 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 29 15
No. of Words: 521 350
No. of Characters: 2684 1500
No. of Different Words: 209 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.778 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.152 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.068 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 187 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 144 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 95 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.966 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.313 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.828 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.302 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.474 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.121 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 685, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun evidence seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much evidence', 'a good deal of evidence'.
Suggestion: much evidence; a good deal of evidence
...on. Even though the author has provided many evidence to show that child is raised by their b...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 533, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...iding them fees to pay to the school. As result, they are not spending much time ...
^^
Line 5, column 431, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'his'?
Suggestion: the; his
...rent. In fact, it is a possibility that the his interview centric approach might have r...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 141, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...sed than observation-centered approach. However this might be seriously flawed. There i...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 271, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...ring an interview. However, observation cant be biased. Furthermore, there might be ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 402, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...iewed only those children whose parents dont have very good relation with other peop...
^^^^
Line 9, column 63, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...l the above points stated undermine the authors argument. In fact, there might many mor...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, furthermore, hence, however, if, incidentally, lastly, look, while, for instance, in fact, talking about, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 19.6327345309 178% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 13.6137724551 169% => OK
Pronoun: 55.0 28.8173652695 191% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2768.0 2260.96107784 122% => OK
No of words: 520.0 441.139720559 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32307692308 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77530192783 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.20383461075 2.78398813304 115% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.425 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 846.9 705.55239521 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 19.7664670659 147% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 55.0277197469 57.8364921388 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.4482758621 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9310344828 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.75862068966 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.189108408026 0.218282227539 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0608136366645 0.0743258471296 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0516021145954 0.0701772020484 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110997118883 0.128457276422 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0750052103543 0.0628817314937 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.28 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.67 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 98.500998004 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => 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.