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 by 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 Tertian village culture is invalid
and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures 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.
According to the author’s thesis, the interview-centered method used by his teams is better than the observation-centered method employed by Dr. Field. Before concluding that this idea is convincing, it is necessary to explore the reasoning on which it is based.
First, the author mentions the fact that his team interviewed people from islands including Tertia and that such interviews revealed that children were rearing by their biological parents, contrary to what Dr. Field argues about Tertia’s children. However, the author bolstered his reasoning if he would provide more information about the sample. How many children from Tertia were interviewed? Imagine that they were far fewer than the children from other islands. Also suppose that they were reared by the community as Dr. Field suggested. Perhaps, the author’s team made an incorrect generalization: they may incorrectly ascribe the way of rearing adopted in islands different from Tertia to Tertia.
For the sake of argument suppose that the sample interviewed was representative enough. In order to enhance his argument, the author has to demonstrate that Tertia’s way of rearing has not changed since Dr. Field conducted his study twenty years ago. If this was the case, indeed, the observation-centered methodology employed by Dr. Field was not incorrect. The fact that his results clash against the results obtained by the interview-centered method can be ascribe to a temporal difference: Dr. Field’s results were true for Tertia’s culture twenty years ago and author’s results are true for the current Tertia.
The author has the burden to prove that the interview-centered method is reliable. For example, he has to exclude that the interviews were not conducted with people who did not lie. What if they did not tell the truth that they were reared by the community? From the the text, it is not clear what Dr. Field’s method involves exactly, but if the author’s does not exclude this case, we will be justified to conclude that Dr. Field’s method is better.
Moreover, in order to conclude that Dr. Field’s method is worse than his method, the author should take into account other cases in which Dr. Field’s method fails. Admitted that Dr. Field’s study leads to wrong results about Tertia’s culture, what if Dr. Field was not not very competent? His method was great, but since he was not a great scientist, he could not describe Tertia’s culture properly.
In conclusion, the author’s conclusion needs to be substantiated by more information. First, the author should offer more data about the representativeness of the sample. Second, it would be wiser if he demonstrated that people engaged in his interviews did not lie. Third, he has to exclude that Tertia’s way of rearing children has not changed since Dr. Field’s study. Finally, he had better consider other cases in which, by employing a similar method to Dr. Field’s, the results are not satisfying.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 477, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'supposes'.
Suggestion: supposes
...n the children from other islands. Also suppose that they were reared by the community ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 264, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...they were reared by the community? From the the text, it is not clear what Dr. Field&ap...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 264, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...they were reared by the community? From the the text, it is not clear what Dr. Field&ap...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 286, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: not
...a's culture, what if Dr. Field was not not very competent? His method was great, b...
^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 505, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...method to Dr. Field's, the results are not satisfying.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, third, as to, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 14.8657303371 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 21.0 11.3162921348 186% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 33.0505617978 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 58.6224719101 90% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2573.0 2235.4752809 115% => OK
No of words: 478.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38284518828 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67581127817 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.27198592275 2.79657885939 117% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 215.323595506 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.422594142259 0.4932671777 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 749.7 704.065955056 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 12.0 4.99550561798 240% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 55.6989520897 60.3974514979 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.208333333 118.986275619 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9166666667 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.45833333333 5.21951772744 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => 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: 0.253219574538 0.243740707755 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0876739516886 0.0831039109588 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0726283917144 0.0758088955206 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151672433746 0.150359130593 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0775937510942 0.0667264976115 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.1639044944 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.38706741573 95% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 100.480337079 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.