It might seem logical, at first glance, to agree with the argument in Dr. Karp’s article that children in Tertia actually are raised by their biological parents (and perhaps even, by implication, that an observation-centered approach to
It might seem logical, at first glance, to agree with the argument in Dr. Karp’s article that children in Tertia actually are raised by their biological parents (and perhaps even, by implication, that an observation-centered approach to anthropological study is not as valid as an interview-centered one). However, in order to fully evaluate this argument, we need to have a significant amount of additional evidence. The argument could end up being much weaker than it seems, or it might actually be quite valid. In order to make that determination, we need to know more then analyze what we learn.
The first piece of evidence that we would need in order to evaluate Dr. Karp’s claims is information about whether or not Tertia and the surrounding island group have changed significantly in the past 20 years. Dr. Field conducted his observational study 20 years ago, and it is possible that Tertia has changed significantly since then. For example, if we had evidence that in the intervening years Westerners had settled on the island and they introduced a more typical Western-style family structure, it would certainly weaken Dr. Karp’s argument. In that case, the original study could have been accurate, and Dr. Karp’s study could be correct, as well, though his conclusion that Dr. Field’s method is ineffective would be seriously weakened.
Another piece of evidence that might help us evaluate this claim involves the exact locations where Dr. Karp’s interviews took place. According to this article, Dr. Karp and his graduate students conducted interviews of “children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia.” If we were to learn that they never interviewed a single Tertian child, it would significantly weaken the conclusion. It could turn out to be the case, for example, that children on Tertia are raised communally, whereas children on other islands nearby are raised by their biological parents.
In order to fully evaluate this article, we would also need to learn more about the interview questions that Dr. Karp’s team used. What exactly did they ask? We don’t know, nor do we know what the children’s responses actually were. What did they say about their biological parents? The mere fact that they speak more frequently about their biological parents than they do about other adults does not meant that they are raised by their biological parents. It would significantly undermine Dr. Karp’s argument if it turned out that the children said things like how much they missed their parents or how their parents had left them in a communal environment. Without knowing WHAT the children said, it is hard to accept Dr. Karp’s conclusion.
It is slightly more difficult to discuss teh evidence we might need in order to evaluate the more interesting claims in Dr. Karp’s article, namely his extension of the results of his study to a conclusion that interview-centered methods are inherently more valid than observational-centered approaches. In order to fully evaluate this claim, in fact, we would need to look at many more examples of interview-based and observation-based anthropological studies and we would also need to look into different study designs. Perhaps Dr. Field did not conduct an effective observational study, but other observational approaches could be effective. In order to make such grandiose claims, Dr. Karp really needs a lot of additional evidence (ideally a meta -analysis of hundreds of anthropological studies).
Clearly, then, we need to have additional evidence in order to get a more complete understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of Dr. Karp’s article. We need to know about Tertia and the surrounding islands, whether or not they have changed over the past 20 years. We also need to know about study design (Dr. Karp’s and Dr. Field’s). And we really need a lot more information if we want to extend the results of a study about one island culture to all anthropological fieldwork.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-10-17 | sarinatiwari | 62 | view |
- The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general well-being of all its people.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developin 23
- Claim: We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from those whose views contradict our own.Reason: Disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning. 16
- 1 An ancient traditional remedy for insomnia the scent of lavender flowers has now been proved effective In a recent study 30 volunteers with chronic insomnia slept each night for three weeks on lavender scented pillows in a controlled room where their sl 72
- check check 50
- no topic 3
Comments
This is the sample of ETS for
This is the sample of ETS for score 6 response, surprisingly, e-grader has graded it awfully ((-:
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 576, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[2]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...hat determination, we need to know more then analyze what we learn. The first piece...
^^^^
Line 2, column 113, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...Karp's claims is information about whether or not Tertia and the surrounding island group...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 417, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'mean'
Suggestion: mean
...han they do about other adults does not meant that they are raised by their biologica...
^^^^^
Line 6, column 215, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...out Tertia and the surrounding islands, whether or not they have changed over the past 20 year...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'really', 'so', 'then', 'well', 'whereas', 'for example', 'in fact']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.234375 0.240241500013 98% => OK
Verbs: 0.149739583333 0.157235817809 95% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0885416666667 0.0880659088768 101% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0677083333333 0.0497285424764 136% => OK
Pronouns: 0.06640625 0.0444667217837 149% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.100260416667 0.12292977631 82% => OK
Participles: 0.0234375 0.0406280797675 58% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.228599366 2.79330140395 116% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0338541666667 0.030933414821 109% => OK
Particles: 0.00390625 0.0016655270985 235% => OK
Determiners: 0.05859375 0.0997080785238 59% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0221354166667 0.0249443105267 89% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0169270833333 0.0148568991511 114% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 4040.0 2732.02544248 148% => OK
No of words: 646.0 452.878318584 143% => OK
Chars per words: 6.25386996904 6.0361032391 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.0414809386 4.58838876751 110% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.343653250774 0.366273622748 94% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.277089783282 0.280924506359 99% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.22600619195 0.200843997647 113% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.147058823529 0.132149295362 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.228599366 2.79330140395 116% => OK
Unique words: 265.0 219.290929204 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.410216718266 0.48968727796 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 50.1557179356 55.4138127331 91% => OK
How many sentences: 25.0 20.6194690265 121% => OK
Sentence length: 25.84 23.380412469 111% => OK
Sentence length SD: 73.4568608096 59.4972553346 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 161.6 141.124799967 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.84 23.380412469 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.56 0.674092028746 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.94800884956 121% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.21349557522 77% => OK
Readability: 53.5489783282 51.4728631049 104% => OK
Elegance: 1.26146788991 1.64882698954 77% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.527393686741 0.391690518653 135% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.141361177651 0.123202303941 115% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.11091110765 0.077325440228 143% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.541317744431 0.547984918172 99% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.147106446552 0.149214159877 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.18580465976 0.161403998019 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.148377217456 0.0892212321368 166% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.383947127476 0.385218514788 100% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0850332072511 0.0692045440612 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.351773562403 0.275328986314 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.145998428648 0.0653680567796 223% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.4325221239 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.30420353982 132% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.88274336283 225% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 7.0 7.22455752212 97% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 3.66592920354 191% => OK
Neutral topic words: 8.0 2.70907079646 295% => OK
Total topic words: 22.0 13.5995575221 162% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 Out of 6
---------------------
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.