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.
The argument attempts to conclude that, the interview-centered method is a much more accurate system than observation based understanding of the child-rearing tradition in different cultures. The conclusion is based on the premises that, the recent interview of the article's author shows deviation from the report of an observation, which was conducted 20 years ago. However, in deeper analysis, it is evident that, some important factual information is missing in the article and some question's regarding the interview unanswered, which seriously undermine the whole statement and it's conclusion.
One such flaw in the argument is that, no one claimed that the observation made 20 years ago by Dr. Field was an authentic one and that is why questioning the validity, does not contain that much significance. Additionally, the observation made by the anthropologist is based on what factors or criteria is not also specified in the article. From what ground Dr. Field claimed that the children in the village were reared by the entire children rather than their parents is not specified there. So, the information regarding the observation tends to zero, which seriously undermines the latter part of the argument, as the argument is based on that observation and questioning it's validity. The author of the argument can be benefited from providing some factual information of the observation, which was made 20 years ago, for example, criteria of the observation, the logical reasoning of the conclusion.
Secondly, the author argues that, the interview came up with some information which directly repudiate the claim of the observation of Dr. Field. But the validity and scope of the interview was not also specified. As, the interview was conducted with some children, living in a group of islands including Tertia, but how many of those children were from Tertia was not specified. For Instance, if there were 50 children questioned in the interview, whereas, only 5 of them were from Tertia, than the interview conducted will not be a representative of the culture or the people of that Tertia island. Moreover, the question pattern of the interview was not also specified, which seriously undermines the claim that the children are reared by their parents. For example, if the question pattern is something like that, it emphasize on their family matters, the occupation of their parents, their parents role in educating themselves, obviously most of the answers will be related to their parents. So, the author should have specified the question pattern to make his argument more strong.
To conclude, the argument lacks information and fails to provide factual evidence regarding his interview. The conclusion of the argument seems tenuous due to incipient assumptions and logical flow. The author should have provided more concrete information to make his argument a more cogent one.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-01 | Sophy@ | 66 | view |
| 2023-09-01 | Sophy@ | 58 | view |
| 2023-08-23 | dhruv7315 | 77 | view |
| 2023-08-19 | Mayuresh08 | 64 | view |
| 2023-08-18 | Dinesh4518 | 85 | view |
- Claim: An action is morally correct if the amount of good that results from the action is greater than the amount of bad that results from the action.Reason: When assessing the morality of an action, the results of an action are more important than the in 50
- Sports stars and movie stars have an obligation to behave as role models for the young people who look up to them.in return for the millions of dollars that they are paid we should expect them to fulfill this societal responsibility. 50
- life today is easier and more comfortable than it was when your grandparent were children. 90
- "Regulators and policymakers should respond to potential environmental threats even before the information is fully known or concrete."How would you rate the accuracy of the above statement? Support your position with reasons and examples. 50
- 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 tha 40
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 822, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'emphasizes'?
Suggestion: emphasizes
...tion pattern is something like that, it emphasize on their family matters, the occupation...
^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'however', 'if', 'moreover', 'regarding', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'whereas', 'for example', 'for instance']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.237816764133 0.25644967241 93% => OK
Verbs: 0.16179337232 0.15541462614 104% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0545808966862 0.0836205057962 65% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0604288499025 0.0520304965353 116% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0292397660819 0.0272364105082 107% => OK
Prepositions: 0.120857699805 0.125424944231 96% => OK
Participles: 0.0604288499025 0.0416121511921 145% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.98171728979 2.79052419416 107% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0155945419103 0.026700313972 58% => OK
Particles: 0.00194931773879 0.001811407834 108% => OK
Determiners: 0.142300194932 0.113004496875 126% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.00974658869396 0.0255425247493 38% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0214424951267 0.0127820249294 168% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2900.0 2731.13054187 106% => OK
No of words: 460.0 446.07635468 103% => OK
Chars per words: 6.30434782609 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6311565067 4.57801047555 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.389130434783 0.378187486979 103% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.330434782609 0.287650121315 115% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.269565217391 0.208842608468 129% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.189130434783 0.135150697306 140% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98171728979 2.79052419416 107% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 207.018472906 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.434782608696 0.469332199767 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 48.1338496774 52.1807786196 92% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.039408867 90% => OK
Sentence length: 25.5555555556 23.2022227129 110% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.9925208297 57.7814097925 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 161.111111111 141.986410481 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5555555556 23.2022227129 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.722222222222 0.724660767414 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 58.5990338164 51.9672348444 113% => OK
Elegance: 1.66666666667 1.8405768891 91% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.358777568107 0.441005458295 81% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.221040064711 0.135418324435 163% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0883469086055 0.0829849096947 106% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.660697938996 0.58762219726 112% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.0815796573169 0.147661913831 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.167742934262 0.193483328276 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0708753312075 0.0970749176394 73% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.578118436428 0.42659136922 136% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.15458298957 0.0774707102158 200% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.244853480372 0.312017818177 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0867498701851 0.0698173142475 124% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.33743842365 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.87684729064 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 2.0 6.46551724138 31% => OK
Negative topic words: 11.0 5.36822660099 205% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 17.0 14.657635468 116% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.