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.
The author proposes that interview-centered method will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions in island of Tertia and in other island cultures than observation-centered approach. To buttress his/her argument, the author cites the following evidences: first, results from observation-centered approach shows children in Tertia were reared by an entire village; second, recent interviews indicate that children spend more time talking about their biological parents; third, the observation-centered approach to studying cultures in not valid by the opinion of Dr. Field. The issue has its own merit, but due to lack of relevant evidences and unaddressed assumptions, the conclusion is unsubstantiated and flawed.
To begin with, the author suggests that interview-centered method exceeds observation-centered method since through today's interview-centered approach, children in Tertia indicate they talk about their biological parents more, while based on observation-based approach, two years ago, kids were reared by an entire village. The comparison, drawn a link between situations today and those twenty years ago is questionable. It is likely that the child-rearing traditions has changed dramatically over these twenty years. Kids were fostered by entire village twenty years ago; on the other hand, kids are fostered by their parents today. Both methods contribute to the credible conclusions, in this case. The chronological comparison is unwarranted since they measure disparate time dimensions.
Moreover, the author assumes that the result of his/her recent interview is credible and convincing. The assumption seems valid at first glance. Nonetheless, after careful investigation, it is not persuasive. The interview about the children living in group of island might not be accurate and representative. The author fails to provide the detailed information about the whole interview processes and sample space. If the interview is carried out in only a few children, they are not able to represent the all the children today who are reared in the island of Tertia. We are not able to draw any conclusion about the rearing method only based on the outcome of the interview above.
The interview result, in addition, shows that more kids spend much more time talking with their parents. Nevertheless, the time spending talking with their parents does not necessarily mean people are raised by their biological parents. Their parents might just be responsible for talking to their kids. Many other resources and opportunities provided to kids during their grown-up are offered by the entire village, such as education chances, food, caring and so on. The conclusion got from the fallacious definition of rearing is unlikely to get support to the author's argument.
Last but not least, the author unfairly assumes that observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid, by proving Dr. Field's research. We are not given the processes, methods and target by Dr. Field's research. If Dr. Field studies other cultural problems in Tertial village which are not able to get result without interview, then it is reasonable to assume that interview is a better method. One possibility is that observation-centered approach to studying cultures can be applied to limited scope of areas, but this does not mean that interview-centered approach is always better in studying the cultures. Different island may have different topics to study on and conditions vary a lot. It is, hence, too naive to conclude that interview-based method is the most accurate one.
To sum up, as it stands, the author's conclusion is relied on several questionable assumptions that undermine its validity. To further strengthen his/her argument, the author is recommended to provide the evidences as follows: first, child-rearing tradition does not change at all over the past twenty years; second, the interview is strictly solid and scientific which is not narrowed to specific groups and it is biological parents that rear their own kids; third, the conclusion of Dr. Field is correct in all culture related researches and interview-based method can be extended to any culture studies in any regions.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/story/gre-argument-essay-topic-21-outline
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 29 15
No. of Words: 654 350
No. of Characters: 3522 1500
No. of Different Words: 274 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.057 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.385 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.272 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 264 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 204 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 147 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 88 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.552 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.947 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.621 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.273 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.486 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.108 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 752, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ion is unsubstantiated and flawed. To begin with, the author suggests that ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ure disparate time dimensions. Moreover, the author assumes that the re...
^^
Line 5, column 687, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d on the outcome of the interview above. The interview result, in addition, shows...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 564, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...aring is unlikely to get support to the authors argument. Last but not least...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 587, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t support to the authors argument. Last but not least, the author unfairly ...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 179, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: ,  
...research. We are not given the processes, methods and target by Dr. Fields resear...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 805, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d method is the most accurate one. To sum up, as it stands, the authors con...
^^^^^^
Line 11, column 30, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...nbsp; To sum up, as it stands, the authors conclusion is relied on several questio...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, so, then, third, while, in addition, such as, talking about, to begin with, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 28.8173652695 160% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 90.0 55.5748502994 162% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3655.0 2260.96107784 162% => OK
No of words: 645.0 441.139720559 146% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.66666666667 5.12650576532 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.03952876749 4.56307096286 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.56814421595 2.78398813304 128% => OK
Unique words: 298.0 204.123752495 146% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.462015503876 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 1094.4 705.55239521 155% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 20.0 8.76447105788 228% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 122.876059677 57.8364921388 212% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 152.291666667 119.503703932 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.875 23.324526521 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.375 5.70786347227 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.282515677126 0.218282227539 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.078570611484 0.0743258471296 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0876042682734 0.0701772020484 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.159068105175 0.128457276422 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.112080548587 0.0628817314937 178% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.7 14.3799401198 130% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.3550499002 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.9 12.5979740519 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 157.0 98.500998004 159% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 12.3882235529 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.