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 the argument, the author concludes that future research on determining how the people of the Island of Tertia rare their children should be carried out via the interview-centred method. He arrives as this conclusion based on some evidence, such as the recent result obtained from an interview conducted with the children living in Island of Tertia, and by invalidating Dr. Field's observation. These premises, if true, might render the claim valid. However, there are three basic questions which the author needs to answer in order to increase the persuasiveness of his claim.
Firstly, are the children which Dr. Field observed twenty years ago in the Island of Tertia similar with the children Dr. karp carried out his interview on? It is possible that the twenty years gap between the two findings have posed considerable changes in the behaviour of the children of Island of Tertia. There might have been an overall change in most of the things that determine how children are being rared. For instance, children in tertia might indeed be rared by an entire village when Dr. Field carried out his observation. However, over the years, the people began giving birth to children that are not amenable to the entire village. This might lead to the adoption of another method of raring the children, and might not even necessarily be that the childrens are now being rared by their parents. It might be that following a change the children's behaviour, the children of Tertia are now being rared elsewhere outside the village. If any of these proves to be true, then the children Dr. Karp used in his interview might not be the same, or have the same traits as the ones Dr. Field studied in his observation, and this significantly weakens the author's claim.
Secondly, are the interviewed children honest in their responses to the interview questions? It is possible that the children of Island of Tertia in which Dr. Karp and his team interviewed are not being honest in their responses to the questions posed. Even if they are being honest, we cannot say for sure that they actually understand the weight of the questions they are being asked, or that they know the consequences of their answers. The children might be too young or ignorant to accurately answer questions in the interview. It is also possible that they felt pressure to answer these questions in the most positive ways they can so as to impress the interviewers. It is also possible that the questions being asked in the interview are leading questions that prompt the children to answer in a manner that suits Dr. Karp's research. If any of these proves to be true, then the author's claim is significantly weakened.
Finally, does talking about parents directly mean children are being rared by their parents? This might not be the same thing. Children might talk about their parents because they miss them or just felt the need to talk about them, not necessarily because they are rared by them. For instance, some children might currently be thinking of their parents at the time the interviewers came to ask questions about the research, and the children might just continue to divulge details about what they are currently thinking about. If this proves to be true, then the author's argument does not hold water.
In conclusion, the author's claim that future research will be more definitive by using the interview method is plausible. However, to increase the cogency of the claim, the author needs to properly answer the three questions outlined above.
- Nature s Way a chain of stores selling health food and other health related products is opening its next franchise in the town of Plainsville The store should prove to be very successful Nature s Way franchises tend to be most profitable in areas where re 68
- We learn our most valuable lessons in life from struggling with our limitations rather than from enjoying our successes Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your positi 50
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state even if these areas could be developed for economic gain Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position 50
- Teachers salaries should be based on their students academic performance 66
- the following appeared in a memo from the director of student housing at Buckingham College To serve the housing needs of our students Buckingham College should build a number of new dormitories Buckingham s enrollment is growing and based on current tren 60
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ase the persuasiveness of his claim. Firstly, are the children which Dr. Fiel...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...gnificantly weakens the authors claim. Secondly, are the interviewed children h...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 648, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...ions in the most positive ways they can so as to impress the interviewers. It is also po...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...thors claim is significantly weakened. Finally, does talking about parents dire...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 571, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ut. If this proves to be true, then the authors argument does not hold water. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... authors argument does not hold water. In conclusion, the authors claim that f...
^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 46, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... In conclusion, the authors claim that future research will be more definitive ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, as to, for instance, in conclusion, such as, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 41.0 19.6327345309 209% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 56.0 28.8173652695 194% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 82.0 55.5748502994 148% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2939.0 2260.96107784 130% => OK
No of words: 596.0 441.139720559 135% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93120805369 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.94096258147 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58436052157 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.392617449664 0.468620217663 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 870.3 705.55239521 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.447289264 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.038461538 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9230769231 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.38461538462 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.67664670659 257% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.186060744708 0.218282227539 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0663774623967 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0826495840972 0.0701772020484 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107865280347 0.128457276422 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0984264077982 0.0628817314937 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.61 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.64 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ase the persuasiveness of his claim. Firstly, are the children which Dr. Fiel...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...gnificantly weakens the authors claim. Secondly, are the interviewed children h...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 648, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...ions in the most positive ways they can so as to impress the interviewers. It is also po...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...thors claim is significantly weakened. Finally, does talking about parents dire...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 571, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ut. If this proves to be true, then the authors argument does not hold water. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... authors argument does not hold water. In conclusion, the authors claim that f...
^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 46, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... In conclusion, the authors claim that future research will be more definitive ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, as to, for instance, in conclusion, such as, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 41.0 19.6327345309 209% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 56.0 28.8173652695 194% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 82.0 55.5748502994 148% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2939.0 2260.96107784 130% => OK
No of words: 596.0 441.139720559 135% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93120805369 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.94096258147 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58436052157 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.392617449664 0.468620217663 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 870.3 705.55239521 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.447289264 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.038461538 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9230769231 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.38461538462 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.67664670659 257% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.186060744708 0.218282227539 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0663774623967 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0826495840972 0.0701772020484 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107865280347 0.128457276422 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0984264077982 0.0628817314937 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.61 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.64 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.