"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."
Dr. Karp concludes his and his team’s interview-centered approach to be more accurate in understanding the child-rearing traditions, but his argument is laden with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to support his conclusion.
According to Dr. Karp, his interviews show that the children in Tertia spend much more time talking about their biological parents than the other adults in the village, and thus, Dr. Field’s conclusion about Tertian village culture is invalid. However, the scope and validity of this claim is questionable. The interview sample may not be representative of the entire child population in Tertia. Additionally, we have no information about the kind of questions asked in the interview. It could be possible that Dr. Karp asked questions which were geared around the kids’ relationships with their biological parents. He is making a highly suspect assumption when he claims Dr. Field’s conclusion to be invalid, just because the kids spent more time talking about their biological parent. There could be numerous reasons why the kids talked more about their biological parents, for example, the questions required them to do that. Moreover, the interview may not be fully representative, valid, and reliable to back the author’s claim.
Adding to the previous implication, he assumes observation-centered approach to studying cultures invalid on the basis of his previous assumption; that Dr. Field’s conclusion about children in Tertia is invalid. While we don’t have enough evidence to suggest if Dr. Field’s conclusion is valid or not, we do know that, even if Dr. Field’s observation about Tertian children is wrong, Dr. Karp can’t use it as the sole basis to make a comparison between interview-centered approach and observation centered approach. There simply isn’t enough relevant evidence to make that comparison, or support the author’s argument.
The interview-centered approach may or may not be apt enough. However, on the basis of certain assumptions Dr. Karp is claiming the observation-centered approach to be invalid, and if invalid, the interview-centered approach to studying child rearing traditions to be more accurate. In hindsight, there is not much evidence to suggest the interview-centered approach to be more accurate. For instance, even if the conclusion-based approach were proven invalid that wouldn’t make the observation-based approach accurate. The observation-based approach must be studied in more depth to make any conclusions about it, and can’t be based on the validity, or invalidity of the former approach.
Dr. Karp’s argument in favour of interview-centered method to study child-rearing traditions is highly suspect. If his assumptions fail to hold true, his entire argument falls apart.
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, moreover, so, thus, while, for example, for instance, kind of, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2390.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 425.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.62352941176 5.12650576532 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54043259262 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.51783670549 2.78398813304 126% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.458823529412 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 698.4 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.67365269461 478% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.1600576446 57.8364921388 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.789473684 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3684210526 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.21052631579 5.70786347227 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.204408707543 0.218282227539 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.074371293529 0.0743258471296 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.060058995537 0.0701772020484 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131081343939 0.128457276422 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0482741345898 0.0628817314937 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.61 12.5979740519 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.48 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => 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.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, moreover, so, thus, while, for example, for instance, kind of, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2390.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 425.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.62352941176 5.12650576532 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54043259262 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.51783670549 2.78398813304 126% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.458823529412 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 698.4 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.67365269461 478% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.1600576446 57.8364921388 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.789473684 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3684210526 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.21052631579 5.70786347227 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.204408707543 0.218282227539 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.074371293529 0.0743258471296 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.060058995537 0.0701772020484 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131081343939 0.128457276422 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0482741345898 0.0628817314937 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.61 12.5979740519 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.48 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => 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.