In the article written by Dr. Karp, it is said that using the interview-centered method to study cultures, the anthropologist’s team has found out that children in Tertia spend much more time discussing their biological parents than other dwellers of the village. According to him, these interviews nullify the value and veracity of the previous observation conducted by Dr. Field, who stated the opposite, and make his observation-centered approach nugatory. However, the anthropologist’s contention, as it currently stands, rests on three unwarranted assumptions that currently render it invalid.
First of all, Dr. Karp said that his interviews had been conducted in the group of islands that includes Tertia, whilst Dr. Field had visited and observed one particular island of Tertia, which makes his observations more accurate. There is the possibility that the culture of the island of Tertia is significantly different from that of other islands in the group. In this case, it is possible that this group includes a huge number of islands where children spend their time mostly talking about their parents than about other adults, as opposed to Tertia where the situation may be the opposite, making the responses of the children of the island of Tertia a small minority. If this is the case, then the conclusion drawn by the author is significantly weakened.
Secondly, the author prematurely assumes that if children talk a lot about their biological parents, then these kids were reared by them. Nevertheless, this may not be the case. Perhaps they were abandoned by their parents and feel hatred and resentment towards them, and these strong negative feelings force children to think a lot about their parents. It is also possible that they do not even know and remember them, so they discuss with curiosity what they look like or who their parents are. If either of these scenarios is true, then the author’s contention that Dr. Field’s conclusion about children in Tertia is invalid does not hold water.
Finally, no information is provided about the number of children interviewed. For example, maybe the anthropologist interviewed only a few children in Tertia. While it can be true that these few children were raised by their parents, no conclusion can be drawn about other children on the island. In other words, if a few interviewed kids were reared by their parents, this does not necessarily mean that this information is true for the majority of children in Tertia. Dr. Karp should provide information about the scope of his interview-centered approach that was conducted in Tertia; otherwise, his whole argument falls apart.
To conclude, the argument is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unfounded assumptions. Dr. Karp needs to substantiate his claim with more evidence so that it can be proved that his interview-centered approach is more accurate and reliable than the observation-centered approach.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 472 350
No. of Characters: 2419 1500
No. of Different Words: 208 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.661 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.125 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.042 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 163 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 128 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.842 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.042 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.684 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.331 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.331 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.128 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 591, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'invalids'?
Suggestion: invalids
...ed assumptions that currently render it invalid. First of all, Dr. Karp said that his ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, look, may, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, then, well, while, for example, talking about, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 13.6137724551 154% => OK
Pronoun: 59.0 28.8173652695 205% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2485.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 472.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26483050847 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6610686524 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14177056992 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.468220338983 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 747.0 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.8568421394 57.8364921388 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.789473684 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8421052632 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.26315789474 5.70786347227 145% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.290449927034 0.218282227539 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0928493959867 0.0743258471296 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0748932190153 0.0701772020484 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.173222793469 0.128457276422 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0612697182659 0.0628817314937 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.21 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.