Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia. Using anobservationcentered approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations thatchildren in Tertia4 were reared by an entire village rather than by

Essay topics:

Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia. Using an
observationcentered approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations that
children in Tertia4 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 interviewcentered 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

This argument denotes that the results of Dr.Field based on observation centered method cannot be plausible in accordance with Dr.Karp who persevered on another strategy called interview centered method. To endorse this hypothesis, three postulations have been proposed. 1) The repercussion of the former researcher cannot serve as paradigm for other researches. 2) Interview centered model can open up new channels for the subsequent experts 3) The consequences of Field’ strategy remained implausible results. Close scrutiny each of these facts, divulges that none of them seem tenable.
A threshold problem with the statement involves the inaccuracy of ramifications of Dr.Field’s method compared with Dr. Karp’s. Going into the depth, the scrivener underestimates the significance of regarding all aspects of results of former investigation, not only one specific term. For instance, the duration of the experiment that Dr. Filed dedicated on that research is vague and undetermined in the text. As a result, this fault and error in whether the results of Dr.Feild is in contrast with Dr.Karp cannot be ignored. Thus, here the role of recognizing the time period of experiment which every explorer should expend to reach a proper and defensible outcome can be felt totally. Furthermore, the age of specific individuals to evince the accurate feedback to the experiments are also omitted by the text.
Even assuming that the results of Dr. Karp can play as an idea specimen to aver other experiments cannot be acceptable. In fact, a number of cases perused and rummaged to make a concrete and actual fact are not specified explicitly by the author. To shed more light on this issue, the higher range of items under supervision during one empirical or theoretical experiment, the more valid and authentic data will be accumulated. Hence, after agglomerating a plethora of information and case studies, it can be expected what hallmarks of the Dr.Karp’ approach can leave profits and privileges for the following specialists. Simply stated, till the writer have not been emphasizes on the range of data base, this vigorous consequence cannot be concluded.
Nor does the mere fact that interview centered prioritizes than observation centered method. Since, the intended group of Dr.Field may not be as exact as the Dr.Karp’s goal. Thus, there is a high susceptibility that these two researchers have been scrutinized two different groups with various visions and tastes. Indeed, seldom will the disparity subsisted among two determined group lead to the similar results in two diverse experiments. It is all transparent that the presence of diverge not converge ramifications in aforementioned experts cannot provoke or represent the priority of one than another.
In sum, the argument is coherently blemished and therefore untenable as it stands. To bolster the thesis, the author must demystify a boundary on cases studied and especially which range of year of children have been investigated. As well as, considering the factor of time and duration in affirming or rejecting one experiment should be inserted to make a more logical and consistent comparison. Ultimately, the preferences and favorites of sundry persons in opting for interview or observation centered approach should be angled and revised.
(517 words)

Votes
Average: 1.6 (1 vote)
Essay Categories

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 46, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Field
...argument denotes that the results of Dr.Field based on observation centered method ca...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 131, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Karp
...nnot be plausible in accordance with Dr.Karp who persevered on another strategy call...
^^^^
Line 1, column 515, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'scrutiny'.
Suggestion: Scrutiny
... strategy remained implausible results. Close scrutiny each of these facts, divulges that none...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 86, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Field&apos
...s the inaccuracy of ramifications of Dr.Field's method compared with Dr. Karp's....
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 483, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Feild
... and error in whether the results of Dr.Feild is in contrast with Dr.Karp cannot be i...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 512, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Karp
...ults of Dr.Feild is in contrast with Dr.Karp cannot be ignored. Thus, here the role ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 191, Rule ID: ACTUAL_EXPERIENCE[1]
Message: Use simply 'fact'.
Suggestion: fact
...sed and rummaged to make a concrete and actual fact are not specified explicitly by the aut...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 543, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Karp&apos
...an be expected what hallmarks of the Dr.Karp' approach can leave profits and privile...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 93, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Since” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...tizes than observation centered method. Since, the intended group of Dr.Field may not...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 125, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Field
...method. Since, the intended group of Dr.Field may not be as exact as the Dr.Karp&apos...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 161, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Karp&apos
... Dr.Field may not be as exact as the Dr.Karp's goal. Thus, there is a high susceptib...
^^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, hence, if, may, regarding, so, then, therefore, thus, well, for instance, in contrast, in fact, as a result, as well as

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2830.0 2260.96107784 125% => OK
No of words: 520.0 441.139720559 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44230769231 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77530192783 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12083805692 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 288.0 204.123752495 141% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.553846153846 0.468620217663 118% => OK
syllable_count: 892.8 705.55239521 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.4808345231 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.2 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.52 5.70786347227 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 11.0 5.25449101796 209% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.0820439982302 0.218282227539 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0222675397229 0.0743258471296 30% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0268940392475 0.0701772020484 38% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0493892875171 0.128457276422 38% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00858891746323 0.0628817314937 14% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.88 8.32208582834 119% => OK
difficult_words: 173.0 98.500998004 176% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.

Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.

argument 1 -- not OK

argument 2 -- not OK

argument 3 -- not OK
--------------------
flaws:
seems you didn't get the way how to argue. Reading a GRE book may help.

--------------------
read the sample essay:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-essays/gre-argumentthe-following-appear…

---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ? out of 6
Category: ? Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 528 350
No. of Characters: 2736 1500
No. of Different Words: 286 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.794 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.182 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.961 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 205 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 163 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 128 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 84 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.12 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.896 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.44 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.239 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.239 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.02 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5