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

Essay topics:

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

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, sample space and content of review with every kids. The author also fails to provide the number of interviewees that come from Tertia. If most of the interviewees are from other island, then it is fallacious to draw any conclusion about the rearing method in Tertia 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. It is plausible that Dr. Field did not conduct effective observations. We are not able to deny the observation-based method entirely. No one can guarantee that Dr. Field's team can get more credible result through interview-based method. 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.

Votes
Average: 6.9 (3 votes)
Essay Categories

Comments

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 455, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... and content of review with every kids. The author also fails to provide the number...
^^^
Line 5, column 718, 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 5, column 1283, 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 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...pport to the authors argument.  

Last but not least, the author unfairly ...
^^
Line 7, column 533, 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 9, 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:
also, 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 : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 28.8173652695 153% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 85.0 55.5748502994 153% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3452.0 2260.96107784 153% => OK
No of words: 602.0 441.139720559 136% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.7342192691 5.12650576532 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.95335121839 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.50987676237 2.78398813304 126% => OK
Unique words: 290.0 204.123752495 142% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.481727574751 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 1035.0 705.55239521 147% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 20.0 8.76447105788 228% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 127.345630951 57.8364921388 220% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 143.833333333 119.503703932 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0833333333 23.324526521 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.625 5.70786347227 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.273064446425 0.218282227539 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0734980408261 0.0743258471296 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0840355435558 0.0701772020484 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.175382546472 0.128457276422 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.106653067883 0.0628817314937 170% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.1 14.3799401198 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.3550499002 78% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.25 12.5979740519 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.78 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 149.0 98.500998004 151% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 12.3882235529 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 29 15
No. of Words: 610 350
No. of Characters: 3325 1500
No. of Different Words: 268 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.97 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.451 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.291 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 247 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 188 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 137 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 88 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.034 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 15.103 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.586 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.269 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.436 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.099 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5