Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia. Using an observation-centered approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. Recently another anthropologist, Dr. Karp, visited the group of islands that includes Tertia and used the interview-centered method to study child-rearing practices. In the interviews that Dr. Karp conducted with children living in this group of islands, the children spent much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. Dr. Karp decided that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture must be invalid. Some anthropologists recommend that to obtain accurate information on Tertian child-rearing practices, future research on the subject should be conducted via the interview-centered method.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
In this argument, some anthropologists suggest that more research related to the child-rearing patterns should be conducted by the interview-centered method in order to yield the accurate result. Plausible as this recommendation seems to be, there are a lot of questions, which, if not answered, would dramatically reduce the persuasiveness of the argument.
First of all, are the results of two different studies conducted by Dr. Field and Dr. Karp in different methods valid? These anthropologists assume, without justification, that the Dr. Field's result regarding the child-rearing patterns is wrong due to its inconsistency with Dr. Karp's. However, maybe both Dr. Karp and Dr. Field's research can reflect the accurate situation of Tertian. Since 20 years past, there could have changed a lot due to the introduce of the advanced educational mood which claims that children reared by parents are more likely to success than by entire village. If this is the case, residents in Tertian may turn their old practice to the new one. Therefore, it is unconvincing to think Dr. Field's conclusion is wrong, and maybe it doesn't matter whether the anthropologists should conduct a new survey.
Secondly, are the methods used properly during the two studies? There is a potential that either Dr. Field or Dr. Karp is properly using their methods, thus made no one's result acceptable. Perhaps, Dr. Field draw his conclusion because he saw the kids in Tertian played and educated in a group with many of adult around them. But the reality could be another picture that parents would educate their kids at home after a day's work. On the other hand, Dr. Karp may come to his conclusion due to the questions he asked. Children in Tertian, nevertheless, might give him the misleading answers account for they had no idea what the man was doing. If the above is true, the recommendation would be significantly weakened since either of the methods is faultless when applied to reality.
Finally, is it valid for these anthropologists to conduct their research only by one method? Granted that the latest research conducted by Dr. Karp showed a different result with Dr. Field, more information is needed to support which method is better. It is a possibility that both of them have their own benefits. Observation-centered method could reflect the real situation due to its objects are not noticed they are been watching. On the other hand, interview-centered method could find more information which cannot be observed. In this case, maybe it is better to find the child-rearing practices in Tertian via two method at the same time.
Overall, this argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the authors are able to answer the questions above, it is possible to fully evaluate the recommendation that whether the anthropologists should conduct more investigation via the interview-centered method.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 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: 480 350
No. of Characters: 2423 1500
No. of Different Words: 227 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.681 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.048 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.126 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 167 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 130 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.818 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.913 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.636 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.299 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.499 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.086 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 446, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
..., there could have changed a lot due to the introduce of the advanced educational mood which ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 759, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ields conclusion is wrong, and maybe it doesnt matter whether the anthropologists shou...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2495.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 479.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20876826722 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67825486995 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17935496505 2.78398813304 114% => OK
Unique words: 237.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494780793319 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 739.8 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.0242365137 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.47826087 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8260869565 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.82608695652 5.70786347227 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.165389159705 0.218282227539 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.050490079254 0.0743258471296 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0352557667713 0.0701772020484 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0887841885043 0.128457276422 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.051805544434 0.0628817314937 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 98.500998004 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.