The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist. “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.”
There are many problems with Dr. Karp’s article on Dr. Field’s observation-centered studies of the child-rearing traditions in Tertia.
Dr. Karp refutes Dr. Field’s conclusion that children in Tertia are reared by an entire village based on an observation the children from islands near Tertia “spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village.” There are several assumptions intrinsic to the preceding statement. First, Dr. Karp assumes that the child-rearing traditions in the islands near Tertia also apply to Tertia. It is possible that each island has distinct child-rearing traditions. A study of each island would be necessary to establish the overall child-rearing traditions. Second, Dr. Karp assumes that frequency with which the children speak about their biological parents indicates that they were raised primarily by their parents and not but other adults in the village. It is possible that despite being raised by many different adults, the children still maintain a stronger connection to their biological parents, and therefore speak about the more often.
Dr. Karp then goes on to state that this “research of mine proves that Dr. Field’s conclusion about Tertian village culture is invalid.” As was mentioned above, Dr. Karp would need stronger evidence that children in Tertia were raised primarily by their biological parents to make this claim. Furthermore, the sample size of children interviewed by Dr. Karp would have to be large to draw overarching conclusions about Tertian village culture. It is possible that Dr. Karp interviewed outlier children who were raised by their biological parents, but that most children were raised by the village.
Dr. Karp expands on the critique of Dr. Field’s conclusions by stating that “the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid as well.” This statement implies that the failing of one study (Dr. Field’s) should be applied to the observation-centered approach as a whole. If Dr. Karp’s assessment of Dr. Field’s research turned out to be true, it is still possible that the observation-centered approach is a valid one. Perhaps Dr. Field did not use a large enough sample size. Before drawing conclusion about the entire observation-centered approach a meta-evaluation of many studies in the field using this approach would need to be performed.
Finally, Dr. Karp states that the results of their studies in Tertia will establish a more accurate understating of child-rearing traditions in other island cultures. This statement assumes that child-rearing traditions are uniform across island cultures. It is possible that the results Dr. Karp gathers in Tertia are not applicable to other island cultures. To make conclusions that apply to island cultures in general, Dr. Karp would need to study many more island cultures than just those in the group of islands that includes Tertia.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 860, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
...s possible that despite being raised by many different adults, the children still maintain a s...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 522, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Before” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...did not use a large enough sample size. Before drawing conclusion about the entire obs...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, if, second, so, still, then, therefore, well, in general, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 14.8657303371 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 21.0 11.3162921348 186% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 33.0505617978 118% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 58.6224719101 116% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2556.0 2235.4752809 114% => OK
No of words: 457.0 442.535393258 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.59299781182 5.05705443957 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62358717085 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.30555566229 2.79657885939 118% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 215.323595506 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.389496717724 0.4932671777 79% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 747.0 704.065955056 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 79.1773482073 60.3974514979 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.0 118.986275619 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.3888888889 23.4991977007 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.16666666667 5.21951772744 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 10.2758426966 29% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.83258426966 269% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.360564983483 0.243740707755 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.142138557542 0.0831039109588 171% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0926938908639 0.0758088955206 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.240354078891 0.150359130593 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0487501279207 0.0667264976115 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.6 14.1392134831 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.44 12.1639044944 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 100.480337079 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.