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.
P#1
There are several flaws in the reasoning of the argument stated above.
P#2
First, the argument should provide more detailed information in order to substantiate the evidence it used for its discussion. For example, the argument mentions that these children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village, but fails to provide further information that how much more. If the difference is too low, then we cannot ignore the probability of accident and this evidence may be not that persuasive.
P#2
Second, the resources of the evidence may be unreliable. For example, the material mentions that the people who conduct the survey are all graduate students who are nor professional. The lack of experience made them more likely to do their research in a wrong way such as didn’t select the children evenly, leading to a bias of the experiment.
P#3
Third, more aspects should be researched. For example, in the material they only observe the taking object but the growth of a child contains more aspects such as body language and so on. Children may learn things from adult’s movements rather than chatting. So, we cannot make this conclusion on by invest on the proportion of the object children speak to.
P#4
Lastly, the way of how they accounting number of object children talking to isn’t introduced. Maybe they interviewed children in a wrong way, leaving children too much pressure and inducing them to answer that they talk to parents more. Also, there would be probability that children accidently talk to parents more during the period they interviewed them, so the research should conduct in a long time to avert this happens.
P#5
So if the argument could consider all the aspects discussed, it would be more thorough and convincing.
| 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 |
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and supporti 100
- Government should place if any restrictions on scientific research and development 75
- The luxuries and conveniences of life contemporary life prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals 70
- Government should place if any restrictions on scientific research and development 83
- The following appeared in a memo from the new vice president of Sartorian a company that manufactures men s clothing Five years ago at a time when we had difficulties in obtaining reliable supplies of high quality wool fabric we discontinued production of 76
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 308 350
No. of Characters: 1457 1500
No. of Different Words: 161 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.189 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.731 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.635 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 108 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 81 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 58 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 26 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.533 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.632 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.867 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.347 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.347 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.166 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 158, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
...ct the survey are all graduate students who are nor professional. The lack of experienc...
^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 250, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a wrong way" with adverb for "wrong"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...e them more likely to do their research in a wrong way such as didn’t select the children even...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 77, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'be'.
Suggestion: be
...ng number of object children talking to isn’t introduced. Maybe they interviewed ch...
^^^
Line 10, column 127, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a wrong way" with adverb for "wrong"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...oduced. Maybe they interviewed children in a wrong way, leaving children too much pressure and...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, lastly, may, second, so, then, third, for example, such as, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.6327345309 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 55.5748502994 63% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1525.0 2260.96107784 67% => OK
No of words: 300.0 441.139720559 68% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08333333333 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 4.56307096286 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64637907757 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 204.123752495 78% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.53 0.468620217663 113% => OK
syllable_count: 451.8 705.55239521 64% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 45.4809361772 57.8364921388 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.666666667 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.33333333333 5.70786347227 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.038228586175 0.218282227539 18% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.015082206304 0.0743258471296 20% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0204988451313 0.0701772020484 29% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0180490333281 0.128457276422 14% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0195454746223 0.0628817314937 31% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => 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: 12.18 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.84 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 98.500998004 62% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.