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.
This argument primarily focuses on the clash of ideology between Dr. Karp and Dr. Field. Dr. Field, based on his observation, states that the children in Tertia are raised by the villagers but not by the biological parents. In contrast to this, Dr. Karp and few other anthropologists believe that that interview-based approach is a more viable approach in gathering the research information.
First and foremost the argument is flawed due to the fact Dr. Field conducted his research 20 years before Dr. Karp. Maybe the children and villagers of Tertia were more reserved. When Dr. Karp conducted his research the children were very responsive and always spoke of their parents.
Furthermore one cannot just conduct research just by observing something. One has to interact with the surroundings as well as the people to get good results. Appearances are always deceptive. Had Dr. Field opted Dr. Karp's approach, the results would have been different.
Lastly, Dr. Karp gained the attention of his fellow anthropologists. The anthropologists found Dr. Karp's approach more pragmatic as compared to Dr. Field. This is more than sufficient to contradict Dr. Field's research output.
Had the argument provided information regarding how the anthropologist community responded to Dr. Field's response at the time of releasing his research, the scenario would have been different.
- The following appeared in a memo from the Board of Directors of Butler Manufacturing."During the past year, workers at Butler Manufacturing reported 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than workers at nearby Panoply Industries, where the work shifts 33
- Technology, while apparently aimed to simplify our lives, only makes our lives more complicated. 50
- 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 33
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 293, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: that
...p and few other anthropologists believe that that interview-based approach is a more viab...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Furthermore,
...e and always spoke of their parents. Furthermore one cannot just conduct research just b...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 194, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the scenario would have been different.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, if, lastly, may, regarding, so, well, as to, in contrast, as well as, in contrast to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.6327345309 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.9520958084 23% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 13.6137724551 29% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 28.8173652695 42% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 55.5748502994 45% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1171.0 2260.96107784 52% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 216.0 441.139720559 49% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.4212962963 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.83365862548 4.56307096286 84% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02484213217 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 121.0 204.123752495 59% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.560185185185 0.468620217663 120% => OK
syllable_count: 330.3 705.55239521 47% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.3524547059 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.6428571429 119.503703932 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.4285714286 23.324526521 66% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.78571428571 5.70786347227 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.225324393333 0.218282227539 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0922262928412 0.0743258471296 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0570628515389 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136124759994 0.128457276422 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0471542777349 0.0628817314937 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 48.3550499002 134% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 12.197005988 66% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.86 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 98.500998004 57% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum 250 words wanted.
Rates: 33.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 2.0 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.