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."
The article states that Dr. Field’s observation-centered method inaccurately represents child rearing in Tertia due to discrepancies found during Dr. Karp’s observation-centered investigation. Therefore, Dr. Karp concludes that his method is better in determining the overall culture of Tertia. This needs to be reexamined due to flaws in assumptions.
Firstly, the conclusion rests on the assumption that if the child talks more about their biological parents, then it is the parents that are more invested in the child’s rearing. Although there may be some correlation, it does not ensure causation. The children may talk more about their parents because they know more about them. Care takers, on the other hand, are just there to oversee the children and not establish any personal bonds with them. That can explain why the children spoke more about the parents. To further investigate this, there should be a survey that asks the child about who they spend the most time with and what they do with the other adults in the village. This will tell what is being done in the time they spend with the respective parties, shedding light on whether or not the assumption is viable.
Secondly, Dr. Field’s observations were done twenty years ago, which can explain the dissonance between the findings. We are not sure if the child rearing culture has changed since then, so it could be that Dr. Field’s was correct at that time. This can weaken the conclusion since it leads to the possibility that observation is actually an accurate method. To see if there was some sort of cultural change that occurred, Dr. Karp should also engage in observation to see if the findings coincide with his interviews. If they do, then that would show that Dr. Field’s findings are just outdated and that his method may still be relevant.
In summation, the conclusion reached by Dr. Karp is based on some flawed assumptions and so further investigation is needed.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 324 350
No. of Characters: 1590 1500
No. of Different Words: 163 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.243 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.907 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.777 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 102 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 79 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 49 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 31 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.657 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.688 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.322 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.535 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.107 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 788, 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
...e respective parties, shedding light on whether or not the assumption is viable. Secondly, ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, sort of, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 55.5748502994 68% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1644.0 2260.96107784 73% => OK
No of words: 324.0 441.139720559 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.07407407407 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24264068712 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89185507741 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 204.123752495 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.521604938272 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 476.1 705.55239521 67% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.0897430773 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.75 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.25 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0625 5.70786347227 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => 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: 0.203949410121 0.218282227539 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0683182233169 0.0743258471296 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0728744074529 0.0701772020484 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135106234084 0.128457276422 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0950693347256 0.0628817314937 151% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 98.500998004 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.