The following appeared on theWeb site Science News Today.
“In a recent survey of more than 5,000 adolescents, the teens who reported eating the most meals with their families were the least likely to use illegal drugs, tobacco, or alcohol. Family meals were also associated with higher grades, better self-esteem, and lower rates of depression. Almost 30 percent of the teens said they ate at least seven meals per week with their families. Clearly, having a high number of family meals keeps teens from engaging in bad behaviors.”
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
Family relations have become a subject of broad interest and scrutiny in the United States as of later. There are those who dispute the favorable effects brought about by dining together and those who affirm them. There are those who assert that sharing meals with relatives reinforces important cognitive values and those who believe dining has little impact on the early development in teens. In the preceding statement, the author ineffectively argues that sharing meals with family members prevents teens from engaging in derogatory behaviors. Although the author's claim may well have merit, he presents a poorly reasoned argument built upon several questionable premises and assumptions that do not hold up under a higher level of scrutiny. Bases solely on the evidence at hand, we cannot accept his conclusion.
The primary concern with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated assumptions. Teenagers who spend their nights at home may well be subject to other influences that could impact their personal growth. If a child is subjected to abuse, sharing multiple meals a week could effectively undermine their accomplishments due to higher levels of stress. The author undermines his argument by failing to expand on the links between interpersonal family relationships and good behavior he assumes exist.
Furthermore, the author draws several other inferences that remain debatable at best. The author assumes all children amongst all families are equally well-nourished. It is possible that children who spend more time astray - in the company of others - are not fed properly and simply deplete their sources of energy faster. This lack of energy could, in fact, lead to a lower self-esteem and higher rates of depression. According to this line of reasoning, the fact that children are properly fed is much more important than the fact they are fed at home. The author's premise, the foundation for his argument, proves devoid of legitimate evidentiary support and renders his conclusion unsatisfactory.
Apart from relying on unfounded hypotheses, the author camouflages his lack of evidence by equivocating throughout his argument. In order to present a more accurate case, the author would have to conduct more extensive research on the families that were surveyed. Without knowing the genetic make-up of the family, it is unacceptable to draw any conclusion. The use of ambiguous language guarantees that the scope and validity of the cited research remain unclear.
Notwithstanding the dubious information and logical fallacies, the author's argument is not entirely untenable. Children who spend more time at home are allotted less time away with friends, who may or may not be a negative influence. In order to come to the right conclusion, any external influences children face away from home must be researched and subjected to the same amount of scrutiny. Futhermore, without citing actual statistics or precise numbers, it is unclear how much teens have actually improved by consuming their meals at home. Even though the author's reasoning at present proves problematic, he could further strengthen his argument by conducting more extensive research and expanding on several inconsistencies.
In summary, the author's fallacious reasoning rests on unfounded premises and assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. By not researching outside factors or specific numbers of improvement, this opinion remains unproven. If the author hopes to present a strong case on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument and provide clear evidentiary support. Without these revisions, his viewpoint will remain largely negated.
Comments
argument has not stated
argument has not stated/implied the following: - "Teenagers who spend their nights at home ", also the question is asking for alternate explanation for the same conclusion.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 68, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... information and logical fallacies, the authors argument is not entirely untenable. Chi...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 478, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
...s or precise numbers, it is unclear how much teens have actually improved by consumi...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, furthermore, if, may, so, then, well, apart from, in fact, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 28.8173652695 153% => OK
Preposition: 80.0 55.5748502994 144% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3116.0 2260.96107784 138% => OK
No of words: 567.0 441.139720559 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.49559082892 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87972968509 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93208976109 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 298.0 204.123752495 146% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.52557319224 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 970.2 705.55239521 138% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.22255489022 261% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 19.7664670659 147% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.480467978 57.8364921388 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 107.448275862 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5517241379 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.72413793103 5.70786347227 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.12442806217 0.218282227539 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0339408967504 0.0743258471296 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0386511928814 0.0701772020484 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0696016109136 0.128457276422 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0374470771225 0.0628817314937 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.62 12.5979740519 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.37 8.32208582834 113% => OK
difficult_words: 172.0 98.500998004 175% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.