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.
Given the method of research presented by Dr. Karp, more evidence is needed in order to completely invalidate Dr. Fields’ research. According to Dr. Karp, interviews were done with children that live in the group of isalnds that include Tertia. Since Dr. Field’s research is focused specifically on the group of children who live in Tertia, only children and adults who live in there should be interviewed.
Dr. Feilds’ team did interviews with children in a group of islands, therefor it stands to reason that only a handful, or even none of the children interviewed live in Tertia. It is possible that the majority of the children interviewed were from other villages on the island in which child rearing is done differently. If Dr. Fields’ team interviews children only from Tertia they may find different results. Certainly if the children they interview still speak more about their own bilogical parents than they do about other adults in the village, this could further strengthen Dr. Fields’ argument. Still these interviews alone are not enough evidence. Simply because a child speaks more about their biological parent than they do about other adults, that does not imperically prove that that child isn’t also being partly raised by other adults in the village. It simply means that the questions asked by the interviewer led them to speak about their biological parents, or that the child just chose to speak about their biological parents, and not other adults in the village. Therefor, even more evidence needs to be garthered and interviews with adults in Tertia need also be conducted.
Interviewing both the children and adults will paint a much more specific picture of what child rearing looks like in Tertial. Certainly if the children interviewed speak mainly about their bilogical parents and the adults speak mainly about only raising their bilogical children this will do much more to strenthen Field’s argument. At the moment the Dr.s argument is only based on very small sample of childeren that may or may not reside in Tertia. By interviewing the people of Tertia only, Dr. Field’s arguent might also be weakened. If residents speak reference other adults helping to teach and raise the children, then Dr. Karp’s hypothesis might begin to look more plausible. Certainly, interviews are not always the most conclusive or reliable. To fully debunk or prove Dr. Karp’s original analysis both observation and interviews conducted by several different teams would be needed. Through all the compilation of all this qualitative research, perhaps a more quantitative results can eventually be yielded.
Certainly, at this point in time Dr. Field’s does not have enough evidence to prove Dr. Karp’s hypothesis to be right or wrong. At this time Dr. Field’s interviews are too broad and too limited to form a conclusion in either direction.
- The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a scientific journal."A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation. The study showed that in stimulating situ 69
- 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 50
- To understand the most important characteristics of a society, one must study its major cities.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In deve 50
- The best ideas arise from a passionate interest in commonplace things.Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement above and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should c 58
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 27, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'interview'
Suggestion: interview
...erviewed. Dr. Feilds' team did interviews with children in a group of islands, th...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 618, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Still,
...r strengthen Dr. Fields' argument. Still these interviews alone are not enough e...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 875, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'several'.
Suggestion: several
...observation and interviews conducted by several different teams would be needed. Through all the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'so', 'still', 'then']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.261343012704 0.25644967241 102% => OK
Verbs: 0.147005444646 0.15541462614 95% => OK
Adjectives: 0.070780399274 0.0836205057962 85% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0998185117967 0.0520304965353 192% => Less adverbs wanted.
Pronouns: 0.0254083484574 0.0272364105082 93% => OK
Prepositions: 0.116152450091 0.125424944231 93% => OK
Participles: 0.043557168784 0.0416121511921 105% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.81825073779 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0235934664247 0.026700313972 88% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0689655172414 0.113004496875 61% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0199637023593 0.0255425247493 78% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0145190562613 0.0127820249294 114% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2934.0 2731.13054187 107% => OK
No of words: 467.0 446.07635468 105% => OK
Chars per words: 6.28265524625 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64867537961 4.57801047555 102% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.364025695931 0.378187486979 96% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.289079229122 0.287650121315 100% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.237687366167 0.208842608468 114% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.164882226981 0.135150697306 122% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81825073779 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 207.018472906 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.44539614561 0.469332199767 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 49.718288291 52.1807786196 95% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 22.2380952381 23.2022227129 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.7752259813 57.7814097925 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.714285714 141.986410481 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2380952381 23.2022227129 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.333333333333 0.724660767414 46% => More Discourse Markers wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 51.1460181503 51.9672348444 98% => OK
Elegance: 1.54666666667 1.8405768891 84% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.253317440557 0.441005458295 57% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.146883784398 0.135418324435 108% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.110048209779 0.0829849096947 133% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.493251658987 0.58762219726 84% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.169937220403 0.147661913831 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106113147163 0.193483328276 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0554544307288 0.0970749176394 57% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.427815065257 0.42659136922 100% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.113799635178 0.0774707102158 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.18499989615 0.312017818177 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0522380837493 0.0698173142475 75% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.82512315271 187% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 3.0 6.46551724138 46% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 6.0 2.82389162562 212% => OK
Total topic words: 12.0 14.657635468 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.