"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.
The argument is about the survey conducted by Dr. Field on the nurturing of children on island of Tertia twenty years ago. It is stated that Dr. Field’s observational approach which tells us that children were trained by people from an entire village than their own biological parents. Further, Dr. Karp submitted other interview-based approach and cited that children do talk about their biological parents more than the villagers. Hence, observational centered approach of Dr. Field should be considered invalid. However, before this argument can be properly evaluated, three assumptions if not substantiated, dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument.
First of all, the author presumes, without evidence, that the cultural situation on Tertia 20 years ago is similar to the culture that is followed by the people 20 years later. Dr. Field conducted the observational based study and perhaps his results were accurate. On the other hand, Dr. Karp came to different conclusions only because the cultural practices on Tertia have changed in the past twenty years. It is possible that during the time when Dr. Field conducted the research people used to live as a joint family. Thus, every member of the family was involved in nurturing the children. Now, there may be possibility that living situations have been nuclear as compared to previous years. If either of these scenarios has merit, then the author’s contention that Dr. Field’s study is invalid does not hold water.
Secondly, the author prematurely assumes that the extent to which the children talk about their biological parents is correlated with how they were raised. However, this might not be the case. Perhaps the children who are raised by an entire village talk more than other kids, and that’s why they tend to mention their parents more. It is likely that though the villagers train the children together and still the children most closely identify with their parents. If above is true, then the author’s claim is not warranted and his suggestion that Dr. Field’s study should be rejected is not overly persuasive.
Finally, even if it is true that Dr. Field’s research methodology and the results were inaccurate, does that mean we should consider the observational model as wrong method than interview-based approach? Perhaps, Dr. Field did conduct the study in error, leading to several notable inaccuracies. It is likely that Dr. Field was not that meticulous while performing the observational approach. A more diligent anthropologist might be able to successfully utilize the observation-based approach without issues. If that were the case, then the conclusion drawn by the argument is not entirely accurate.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to provide explanation regarding unstated assumptions, then it will be possible to evaluate the viability of the conclusion that Dr. Field’s observational study is invalid.
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition. 50
- The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company. "According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in an 29
- In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating, and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes litt 69
- All too often companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees such consultants would be unnecessary 83
- Society 66
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 480 350
No. of Characters: 2492 1500
No. of Different Words: 224 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.681 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.192 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.852 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 184 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 145 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.292 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.708 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.31 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.495 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.081 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, hence, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, still, then, thus, while, in conclusion, first of all, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 22.0 13.6137724551 162% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2575.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 480.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36458333333 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68069463864 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95509726175 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.489583333333 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 769.5 705.55239521 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.2098830725 57.8364921388 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.291666667 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.41666666667 5.70786347227 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
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: 0.337373009812 0.218282227539 155% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0937286776653 0.0743258471296 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0790293188856 0.0701772020484 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.185207165111 0.128457276422 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0959894405707 0.0628817314937 153% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.