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 examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The author boldly asserts that the observation-centered research conducted by Dr. Field twenty years ago on the Island of Tertia is inconsequential compared to his interview-centered method. But this argument may not be wholly valid or is based on inconcrete assumptions in the least.
The author provides that he rejects Dr. Field’s conclusion that all island children, regardless of kin status, were nurtured by the general adult population. But the author's argument does not elaborate on how Dr. Field came up with his conclusion and methodology. It thus does not provide solid reasoning to invalidate Field’s observation-centered research. Additionally, the temporal difference between “twenty years” and “now” must be considered before reaching firm conclusions. The author’s assumption that the research conducted 20yrs ago is still valid and that no variations in the ideology or demeanor of people residing on the island could perhaps cloud judgment and lead to erroneous conclusions. The possibility that the gap of twenty long years may have brought significant changes in the village culture must not be ignored. It can be argued that the island, being estranged from the mainland, has developed its own distinct culture or a “cocoon” where rearing another’s child is standard practice and not deemed unusual as is observed in some mainland cultures.
Secondly, there is no clarification on the questions that were asked to the children of Tertia. The questions could have been worded or asked in a particular way to elicit a specific response related to the children's biological parents. Arriving at conclusions based on answers received from children does not prove that the other adults on the island contributed any less than the birth parents.
The argument also fails to inform other critical factors, such as the duration of Dr. Field’s visit or period of interaction with the indigenous population and the possibility that Dr. Field’s visit coincided when a cultural celebration was taking place and where he observed the unity among the people as one big family.
Furthermore, the grounds where the two scientists conducted research were not equal. Dr. Field’s reasoning is based on observations made at one island (Tertia), whereas Dr. Karp’s conclusion results from interviews conducted on a group of islands. Thus, the argument is imbalanced and unconvincing.
Hence, the various gaps, unanswered questions, and unsupported assumptions warrant that neither argument presented by anthropologists must be immediately invalidated.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 393 350
No. of Characters: 2117 1500
No. of Different Words: 210 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.452 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.387 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.116 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 163 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 131 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 100 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.118 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.905 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.647 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.315 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.495 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.087 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 167, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...y the general adult population. But the authors argument does not elaborate on how Dr. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, hence, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, thus, whereas, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2199.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 393.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.59541984733 5.12650576532 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45244063426 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.23996620546 2.78398813304 116% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.559796437659 0.468620217663 119% => OK
syllable_count: 650.7 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.8891803185 57.8364921388 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.352941176 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1176470588 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.35294117647 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
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: 0.257147748013 0.218282227539 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0758049445318 0.0743258471296 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.064464546538 0.0701772020484 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126827059192 0.128457276422 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.049475293964 0.0628817314937 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 14.3799401198 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.5 12.5979740519 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.68 8.32208582834 116% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 98.500998004 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.