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.”
Dr. Field claims that the results of Dr. Karp study are incorrect as her own experience with the children of Tertia provides different conclusions about the social construction of child rearing and thus invalidates Dr. Field study. There are problematic ideas that result in a specious analysis by Dr. Field.
To begin, in Dr. Field’s interviews with children, they more frequently talked about their own parents than of older adults. She concludes that, contrary to Dr. Karp’s conclusion that the childen of Tertia were reared by the entire village rather their by their own biological parents, that the children are actually raised primarily by their parents. The assumption that Dr. Field makes is that since the children talk more about their parents than other adults, they are primarily raised by their parents. She also makes the assumption that the children would be most cognitive of their rearing more so than their own parents and village adults. This is faulty reasoning based on an assumption that whoever the children talk about the most is the most involved adult in their rearing. Her conclusion is thus flawed.
Details of Dr. Field’s interviews with children are unclear. The questions on the interview could have emphasized the child’s biological parents or been skewed in the direction of biological parentage instead of a more holistic approach. There may not have been direct questions about the village adults and only questions about their relationship with those who raised them, which one would assume would be based on relationships with biological parents, but both this assumption and Dr. Field’s study are not convincing or precise enough to validate Dr. Field’s conclusion.
Further, Dr. Field discounts the observation-centered approach used by Dr. Karp simply due to the contrary results of her study. She does not make room for the possibility that these two approaches may allow for different results, and therefore claims that Dr. Karp’s study is invalid solely because the results of her study opposed Dr. Karp’s conclusions. These is not a logical assumption to make and cannot provide definitive evidence that the observation-centered approach is invalid, so Dr. Field’s claim is fallacious.
The length of the study and quantity of collected data may also provide different results. Perhaps Dr. Field conducted a week-long study and Dr. Karp’s study was done over a series of months or even years. It is not specified who had more data nor the duration of the study. Quantity and quality of evidence is important to make a conclusive claim and can be a factor in the validity of both Dr. Karp and Dr. Field’s results.
Equally important to the results of any study is the breadth of information. Dr. Field’s claims do not include enough supporting evidence to validify the conclusion that Dr. Karp’s study is invalid due to its use of an observation-centered method. Her team of graduate students are also using the interview-centered method that Dr. Field used. This information will be important to further investigate the child rearing methods of Tertia, but its interview-centered method may be a limiting force.
- 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 r 55
- “The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones.” 50
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 22 15
No. of Words: 512 350
No. of Characters: 2607 1500
No. of Different Words: 202 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.757 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.092 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.887 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 187 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 146 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.273 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.622 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.455 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.363 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.594 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.203 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 310, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...lt in a specious analysis by Dr. Field. To begin, in Dr. Field's interviews...
^^^^
Line 7, column 368, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[4]
Message: Did you mean 'this'?
Suggestion: This
...dy opposed Dr. Karp's conclusions. These is not a logical assumption to make and...
^^^^^
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Equally,
.... Karp and Dr. Field's results. Equally important to the results of any study i...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, if, may, so, therefore, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 28.8173652695 153% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2723.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 512.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.318359375 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75682846001 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09483426293 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.419921875 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 807.3 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.543301865 57.8364921388 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.772727273 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2727272727 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.22727272727 5.70786347227 39% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.67664670659 278% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.268500018328 0.218282227539 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0934995390745 0.0743258471296 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0664216675646 0.0701772020484 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.159413592779 0.128457276422 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0295185789915 0.0628817314937 47% => 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: 15.3 14.3799401198 106% => 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: 13.87 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 98.500998004 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.