the following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist"Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village

Essay topics:

the following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist

"Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia show that these children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. this research of mine proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertia village culture is invalid and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying culture is invalid as well. The interview- centered method that my team of graduate students is currently using in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures.

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

While it may be true that Dr. Field’s previous research is no longer valid, this author does not make a cogent case for his conclusions on the child-rearing techniques in Tertia and that the interview-centered method is more valid than the observation-centered method. It is easy to understand why Dr. Karp has rendered these conclusions, but more evidence is needed to establish whether his arguments are valid, including evidence on the interview-method, the cultural norms of the island now compared to 20 years ago, and whether there are differences within the group of islands.

Dr. Karp states that his interview-centered method was more accurate than the observation-centered approach used by Dr. Field, but does not specify the types of questions asked or whether these children understood what he was asking. His interview could have included many questions about biological parents, instead of vague questions about their childhood. As a result, children would inevitably spend more time talking about their biological children. If the questions are focused specifically on their biological parents, it would weaken Dr. Karp’s argument that the interview-centered method is more accurate than the observation-centered method, because it does not paint the whole picture, and focuses on only one part. Additionally, there may have been a communication barrier between his interviewers and interviewees, which could have led to inaccurate responses. These interviews could have also taken place in front of their parents, so children may have been more inclined to talk about their parents. If all of these situations were true, then it severely weakens Dr. Karp’s argument, since it suggests that the interview was not an accurate picture of their childrearing techniques. Thus, more evidence is needed on how the interviews were conducted in order to conclude which method was more accurate.

Additionally, Dr. Karp states that Dr. Field’s research was conducted 20 years ago, but does not account for any cultural changes in behavior and traditions before claiming that Field’s research was invalid. Twenty years is enough time for new behaviors to become the norm, so Field’s research may have been valid at the time. If childrearing techniques became more primary family oriented, as opposed to collectivist, then it weakens Dr. Karp’s conclusion that previous research was not valid. More evidence of the changes in cultural norms of childrearing in the Tertia island is needed before invalidating previous research. Additionally, Dr. Karp’s interviews have included children from other islands surrounding Tertia, as well as Tertia. There is no evidence to suggest that these islands have the same childrearing techniques, and it is possible that each island has a different norm. By grouping all the islands together, without specifying whether or not they have the same practices, weakens Dr. Karp’s arguments, since we cannot be sure whether his results are more representative of the other islands, as opposed to Tertia.

Dr. Karp’s results may have been appropriate for how he conducted his study, but there is not enough evidence to say whether or not his arguments are valid. To invalidate Dr. Field’s research and form conclusions on the child rearing traditions, more evidence regarding the interview-method and cultural changes/norms in Tertia is needed.

Votes
Average: 5 (1 vote)
Essay Categories

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ferences within the group of islands. Dr. Karp states that his interview-cente...
^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...clude which method was more accurate. Additionally, Dr. Karp states that Dr. F...
^^^
Line 5, column 976, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...he islands together, without specifying whether or not they have the same practices, weakens D...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... other islands, as opposed to Tertia. Dr. Karp's results may have been ap...
^^^
Line 7, column 123, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...but there is not enough evidence to say whether or not his arguments are valid. To invalidate ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, may, regarding, so, then, thus, well, while, talking about, as a result, as well as

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

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.5258426966 164% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 33.0505617978 127% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 51.0 58.6224719101 87% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2923.0 2235.4752809 131% => OK
No of words: 526.0 442.535393258 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.55703422053 5.05705443957 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78901763229 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.32612047138 2.79657885939 119% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 215.323595506 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.433460076046 0.4932671777 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 881.1 704.065955056 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 11.0 3.10617977528 354% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 7.0 1.77640449438 394% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.4835968936 60.3974514979 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 153.842105263 118.986275619 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.6842105263 23.4991977007 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.15789473684 5.21951772744 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 10.2758426966 29% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.21136378125 0.243740707755 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0817868929285 0.0831039109588 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0528503096056 0.0758088955206 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.146516184866 0.150359130593 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.027091610045 0.0667264976115 41% => 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: 18.6 14.1392134831 132% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.8420337079 73% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.1743820225 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.26 12.1639044944 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 100.480337079 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 11.8971910112 155% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 11.7820224719 161% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:

para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.


Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.