The following appeared on the Website 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.
The argument stated above is faulty for numerous reasons. Essentially, the evidence offered to argue the main claims of the argument are not as cogent as they appear. Concluding a high number of family meals keeps teens from engaging in bad behaviors based on a superficially discussed study and ignoring other aspects of a teen’s environment, is unreasonable.
Firstly, the author fails to provide evidence to support the study referred to in the argument. The author does not mention how the survey in the study was conducted. Self-reporting surveys revolve around researchers interviewing individuals and concluding results based off of the answers given by the interviewee. But self-reporting surveys are prone to individuals being untruthful or not firmly fixed on an answer when questioned. If the survey subsumed in the argument was an interview of teens, then this could render the study as unreliable because there is no method to verify the answers of individuals question and the use of the study in the argument would make the argument unjust. On the other hand, if the author presented the specifics of the study and how it was conducted, the argument would deem to be more plausible. In either case, there is no way to measure the truth of the answers given by the interviewees.
Additionally, the argument neglects to address other issues presented. Imagine there is a credible method to measure the answers given by the teens in the survey, it is still baseless to conclude teens that have more family meals are less inclined to engage in bad behaviors, solely depending on the study. So, the author continues to speculate other factors are not playing a role in the results of the study. For example, children with good grades can have peers that also are likely to pay more attention to schoolwork which could encourage friends in the same friend group to engage in school-related activities. So, these children are having meals with their families but are there are other factors that could be impacting their behavior that are being ignored. Not only this, but if a teen exposed to drugs and alcohol at home but still has meals with the family, this could influence them to experiment as well. The author also does not take additional aspects of an individuals into consideration. Because the argument does not take into account multiple factors of an individual’s lifestyle, the argument is weakened. However, if the arguer included factors such as types of friends or access to drugs and alcohol, the argument would hold more validity. But even so, it is difficult to account for all factors contributing to an individual’s life.
Lastly, the argument is built upon undescriptive statements. For instance, the author states “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.” But it is not mentioned the sample size the author included in the study. There is a possibility that the total population that was considered in the study was 50,000. This would mean that 5000 teens out of 50,000 were less likely to engage in bad behavior but this is only 10% of the sample size, which is not significant enough to conclude the likelihood to disengage in these activities were because these individuals had family meals.
As a result of the various unwarranted presumptions made by the argument, the author fails to compile a compelling case to prove children engaging in good behaviors is due to family meals.
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: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 594 350
No. of Characters: 2905 1500
No. of Different Words: 258 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.937 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.891 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.707 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 207 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 151 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 106 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.846 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.886 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.654 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.31 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.469 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.088 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 973, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'an individual' or simply 'individuals'?
Suggestion: an individual; individuals
...lso does not take additional aspects of an individuals into consideration. Because the argumen...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, so, still, then, well, even so, for example, for instance, such as, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 19.6327345309 178% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 82.0 55.5748502994 148% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2988.0 2260.96107784 132% => OK
No of words: 594.0 441.139720559 135% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0303030303 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.93681225224 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82067881125 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 263.0 204.123752495 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.442760942761 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 939.6 705.55239521 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.4343766434 57.8364921388 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.52 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.76 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.84 5.70786347227 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 6.88822355289 232% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.249158709641 0.218282227539 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0614816871573 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.101578198517 0.0701772020484 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140904930769 0.128457276422 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.11980866519 0.0628817314937 191% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.19 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 98.500998004 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.