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.
Dr. Karps argument is blatantly presumptuous when he arrives at a conclusion not just disregarding Dr Fields research that states that children in the villiage of Tertia are brought up by the entire villiage as inconsequential but also with claims that the interview centric approach he follows is superior to the observation centric approach followed by Dr.Field.
The argument arrives at the conclusion that Dr. Fields resarch is erraneous by frivolously stating the reason as children talking about their parents more than the other people in the villiage means that the others in the villiage do not bring them up. This is erraneous as it is very well possible that the questions asked to these kids were primarily pertaining to their parents, for which the answer will obviously be favouring the argument made. Additionally, even if the questions asked to the kids were relevant and unbiased, it still does not give credibilty to the argument as it is possible that the children are just closer to their parents compared to the rest of the villiage, which this does not mean that the villiage does not bring the child up. It simply means that the children are more affectionate towards their parents.
Another conclusion that the presented argument arrives at is that an interview centric approach superceeds an observation centric approach. This claim is not just an attempt to undermine Dr Fields work, but it also undermines the work of any other individual that has arrived at results using an observation based approach. In this case, since it is mentioned that Tertial is a small/remote island, it is likely that the people in Tertia are not well versed with the dynamics of family that our world is accustomed to. Additionally, it is also possible that the questions asked to the people in Tertia were lost/misconstrued in translation. Thus, it is evident that the interview centric approach employed may not be the best option for this scenario. On the other hand the observation based approach is based on the principle that Actions speak Louder than words. It is nearly impossible to misinterpret the actions of affection displayed by a villiage in bringing up the young ones in that villiage.
The argument also fails to specify the sample space of each of the research. It is possible that Dr. Fields made his conclusion based on observations made over a period of time with a larger sample space, whereas Dr Karp has arrived at his conclusion on the basis of interviews that were carried out over a much smaller sample space. As a result, the credibility of the argument is heavily questioned without these little certainities.
However, it must be mentioned that if the sample space was unbiased, the interview contained of relevant questions and if the answers of the children in these interviews directly suggests that they are talking more about their parents just because it is soley them that are bringing th children up, then the argument is worthy of being taken seriously and casts a shadow of doubt over Dr. Fields claims.
But this still wont account for Dr Karps claims that interview based approach is better than the observation centric approach as such a claim will require a wide range of examples.
Thus, it can safely be concluded that due to the presumptuous and frivolous reasons cited that has led to Dr. Karp arriving at his conclusion, the argument just falls short of being baseless, but it does have the potential of being a cogent one with a bit more research and valid citations.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 596 350
No. of Characters: 2889 1500
No. of Different Words: 237 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.941 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.847 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.66 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 204 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 162 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 120 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 33.111 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 16.769 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.833 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.348 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.63 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.128 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 7 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 359, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Field
...rvation centric approach followed by Dr.Field. The argument arrives at the concl...
^^^^^
Line 13, column 163, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...usion based on observations made over a period of time with a larger sample space, whereas Dr ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, regarding, so, still, then, thus, well, whereas, talking about, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 39.0 19.6327345309 199% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 30.0 13.6137724551 220% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 65.0 28.8173652695 226% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 72.0 55.5748502994 130% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2961.0 2260.96107784 131% => OK
No of words: 594.0 441.139720559 135% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98484848485 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.93681225224 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75839426192 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 204.123752495 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.407407407407 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 880.2 705.55239521 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 33.0 22.8473053892 144% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 95.5407126715 57.8364921388 165% => OK
Chars per sentence: 164.5 119.503703932 138% => OK
Words per sentence: 33.0 23.324526521 141% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.83333333333 5.70786347227 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.188009355924 0.218282227539 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0599397779999 0.0743258471296 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.058249283762 0.0701772020484 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0980947568429 0.128457276422 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0557626027799 0.0628817314937 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.5 14.3799401198 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.44 48.3550499002 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.2 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 98.500998004 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 27.5 12.3882235529 222% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 15.2 11.1389221557 136% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.