Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia. Using an observation-centered approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. Recently another anthropologist, Dr. Karp, visited the group of islands that includes Tertia and used the interview-centered method to study child-rearing practices. In the interviews that Dr. Karp conducted with children living in this group of islands, the children spent much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. Dr. Karp decided that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture must be invalid. Some anthropologists recommend that to obtain accurate information on Tertian child-rearing practices, future research on the subject should be conducted via the interview-centered method.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The author's recomendation that future research should be conducted via the interview-centered method, is lacking some logical explaining. Although he concludes that Dr.Field's conclusion is invalid , we can't deny that Dr.Karp's conclusion requires further proof as well, and thus implying that resaerch must be done via dr.Karp's method isn't accurate.
First, the writer assumes that since the interview-centered method concluded that children were reared by their biological parents , then accordingly the observation -centered approach is flawed. Just because new findings have risen doesn't necessarily mean older ones are wrong. Since there is a time difference of nearly 20 years this could have majorly influenced the results of the research, as different parenting methods are known to change throughout different generations. If this was the case then both two resaerchers would be righteous, and naturally at recent times the recomended study would be an observational one to further validate the recent interview one.
Another paramount aspect the author omits from his assumptions, is the factors in which the interview- centered research was conducted; in terms of were the children questioned in the presence of their parents, were they affected pshychologicaly by the interviewers , and did the actual questions imply a certain answer or completely neutral. Had the author described the exact nature of his interviews and what future interviews would be like that would have added some much needed accuracy to his conclusion.
Finally, the writer never mentioned the situatuion the children interviewed had been choosen upon. What age group were they, and were they choosen randomly from various economic backgrounds ? Much needed explanation is required to verify the extent these children interviewed truly represent their village , rather than them being an exception to the normal case.
So to sum it up, the author's recomendation and conclusion are definitely rifled with some holes , and with further proof his predicament can be much more cogent and acceptable .
Sentence: The author's recomendation that future research should be conducted via the interview-centered method, is lacking some logical explaining.
Error: recomendation Suggestion: recommendation
Sentence: Although he concludes that Dr.Field's conclusion is invalid , we can't deny that Dr.Karp's conclusion requires further proof as well, and thus implying that resaerch must be done via dr.Karp's method isn't accurate.
Error: resaerch Suggestion: research
Sentence: If this was the case then both two resaerchers would be righteous, and naturally at recent times the recomended study would be an observational one to further validate the recent interview one.
Error: resaerchers Suggestion: researchers
Error: recomended Suggestion: recommended
Sentence: Another paramount aspect the author omits from his assumptions, is the factors in which the interview- centered research was conducted; in terms of were the children questioned in the presence of their parents, were they affected pshychologicaly by the interviewers , and did the actual questions imply a certain answer or completely neutral.
Error: pshychologicaly Suggestion: psychological
Sentence: Finally, the writer never mentioned the situatuion the children interviewed had been choosen upon.
Error: choosen Suggestion: choose
Error: situatuion Suggestion: situation
Sentence: What age group were they, and were they choosen randomly from various economic backgrounds ?
Error: choosen Suggestion: chosen
Sentence: So to sum it up, the author's recomendation and conclusion are definitely rifled with some holes , and with further proof his predicament can be much more cogent and acceptable .
Error: recomendation Suggestion: recommendation
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
But argument 2 and argument 3 could be put together as one argument.
Suggested arguments:
1. whether or not Tertia and the surrounding island group have changed significantly in the past 20 years
2. the exact locations where Dr. Karp’s interviews took place. --'children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia'
3. we would also need to learn more about the interview questions that Dr. Karp’s team used.
4. how to prove 'conclusion that interview-centered methods are inherently more valid than observational-centered approaches'?
flaws:
No. of Spelling Errors: 9 2
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 9 2
No. of Sentences: 12 15
No. of Words: 320 350
No. of Characters: 1728 1500
No. of Different Words: 198 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.229 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.4 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.958 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 131 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 100 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.57 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.417 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.34 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.64 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.067 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5