Claim: The best way to teach is to praise positive and ignore the negative actions
The researcher here with a new method of studying island cultures wants to claim that Dr. Field’s theory that the children in Tertia were raised by the entire village rather than the biological parents is false, and they usually talk more about their biological parents rather than other adults. Stating that their interview-based method was better than the observation centred method, they fail to mention several key factors, also reveal several instances of poor reasoning, and distorts the view of the situation by manipulating the facts and providing weak claims. To garner support for their claims, the author says their interviews with the kids reveals that they spend more time with their biological parents, rather than any other adult in the village. However further scrutiny of the evidence will reveal that it provides little credible support for the author’s claims. Hence the overall argument seems incomplete and unsubstantiated.
Firstly, the author’s largest leap seems to be when the try to claim that their current interview with the children of Tertia is proof enough to debunk Dr Field’s work without additional data. They should look as to whether the behaviour and culture of the Tertia village or any other villages around them didn’t change in the last 20 years. If this didn’t happen, then it would make a stronger case for Dr. Karp. But in the case that it did change, and it were to be true and some activities in the last 20 years did lead to a shift in the culture and way of life there, then this would just be detrimental to the case. Secondly, the author should also have a look as to what exact locations did the team of Dr. Field visit? They should get a hold of the exact villages and exact families that they talked to, in order to get a clear understanding of their findings about the life in Tertia. Cause for all we know that this could be a community specific way of life in these villages, and the families observed or interviewed by both the teams might have had different beliefs. There is also a chance that, this way of life might be prevalent in just some parts of the island, hence Dr. Karp’s team should make sure to visit the same locations in order to make a stronger case for their theory.
To further claim whether the interview-centred approach is better, the new team ought to obtain the exact set of questions that Field’s team might have asked the villagers and their verbatim answers as well. After getting all this, can they correctly claim that the Tertians let everyone raise their children or did the parents do it themselves. Some additional questions also need to be answered like: What did the children actually say? Does speaking more about biological parents convey them raising the kids in any way? How can we conclude the guardian from the children’s frequency of mentioning their parents? Had they said that “they miss their parents a lot”, or “they miss spending time with them”, then this would have done a lot of good to Dr. Karp’s case.
Finally, before concluding, Dr. Karp have surely found an interesting theory, but without actually knowing what the kids are saying, concluding anything might be too farfetched. Along with this, if they want to prove that their way is better than Field’s, then they might have to come up with detailed study about the total time spent with children vs social acceptability or the bond between the biological parents and their progeny vs the behavioural characteristics of the child etc. Additional and exhaustive interviews and research will be needed to look into before belittling the observation-centred method and the other methods.
While the argument put forward by the researcher, is quite innovative and interesting, the data presented could have been more exhaustive in order to convince the reader. In conclusion, the author’s arguments seem unpersuasive and to make bolster their claims, the author should have more concrete evidence and analysis for to determine the hypothesis is the best method to approach studies of new group of people.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 762, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...er than any other adult in the village. However further scrutiny of the evidence will r...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 881, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...edible support for the author’s claims. Hence the overall argument seems incomplete a...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 211, Rule ID: WHETHER[6]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "as to"?
Suggestion: whether
...thout additional data. They should look as to whether the behaviour and culture of the Tertia...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, then, well, while, as to, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 11.1786427146 224% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 60.0 28.8173652695 208% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 86.0 55.5748502994 155% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3415.0 2260.96107784 151% => OK
No of words: 688.0 441.139720559 156% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.9636627907 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.12149920406 4.56307096286 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65047699655 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 316.0 204.123752495 155% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.459302325581 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 997.2 705.55239521 141% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.67365269461 418% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 66.8337359714 57.8364921388 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.291666667 119.503703932 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.6666666667 23.324526521 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.54166666667 5.70786347227 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.0431078983129 0.218282227539 20% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0143573314191 0.0743258471296 19% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0176230709481 0.0701772020484 25% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0268110784076 0.128457276422 21% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0115487307647 0.0628817314937 18% => 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: 16.3 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.98 48.3550499002 124% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.8 12.197005988 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.08 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 139.0 98.500998004 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 12.3882235529 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.