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."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
Dr. Karp tries to find the truth about the rearing system on Tertia island. He argues against the study of Dr. Field. He suppose that his methods were not accurate and they led to the wrong conclusions about the investigated problem. Perhaps, the conclusion of Dr. Karp might be true and reasonable, however, after a short examination of the passage, it becomes obvious that the text has its weak points that should be supported by specific evidence. Otherwise, Dr. Karp ventures to make a wrong conclusion.
Probably, the one of the main point of the passage is whether Dr. Field conducted his studies with the help of the observation-centred method. The text contains the word "observations", however, it does not explicitly states what kind of method was used. Perhaps, Dr. Field used different approaches, and he made conclusion about the rearing system basing on information from distinct sources and methods. Hence, in order to be sure about Dr. Karp statement, he should provide additional evidence that Dr. Field used only observation-centred method. In this regard, the Dr. Karp's statement will be more solid and trustworthy.
The next serious point of the passage is about Dr. Karp study. He states that he interviewed children form islands that included Tertia island. However, he did not mention that the study was held on Tertia island.
So, in this regard, he must provide information that the study was held on Tertia island too. Otherwise, he ventures to undermine own arguemenation, because, it turns that Dr. Field and Dr. Karp studied different islands. Plus, the passage does not state whether these islands have the same culture or not. Hence, Dr. Karp should provide evidence that Tertia island was included in the study, or at least, that these islands have the same culture and traditions. So, only in this case, his argumentation will be solid and reasonable.
Even if the previous moments are supported with additional evidence and they turn true, it still has the most important point of the text is the period of Dr. Karp investigation. He says that the study of the rearing system was held after 20 years of Dr. Field. Obviously, such important point should be supported by evidence that the traditions and culture were not changed. Perphaps, these islands were subjected the process of global development, and it seriously changed their traditions. So, in this case, the evidence should be provided that the culture was the same.
To sum up, the Dr. Karp tries to undermine the conclusion of Dr. Field investigation, but he seriously lacks additional evidence and information to do it correctly.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-12 | Devendra Prasad Chalise | 16 | view |
| 2019-07-21 | Marcello | 89 | view |
| 2019-06-28 | kap | 50 | view |
| 2019-06-07 | Gh.Ne | 55 | view |
| 2018-10-22 | avinash2618 | 83 | view |
- The following appeared in a memo to the board of directors of a company that specializes in the delivery of heating oil."Most homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for he 50
- Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain y 53
- The council of Maple County, concerned about the county's becoming overdeveloped, is debating a proposed measure that would prevent the development of existing farmland in the county. But the council is also concerned that such a restriction, by limiting 70
- In this age of intensive media coverage, it is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for t 50
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position 73
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: Otherwise, he ventures to undermine own arguemenation, because, it turns that Dr. Field and Dr. Karp studied different islands.
Error: arguemenation Suggestion: argumentation
--------------------
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not exactly
--------------------
flaws:
We need to accept all evidence are true. but we need to find out loopholes from the evidence. It is wrong to cast doubt like:
the one of the main point of the passage is whether Dr. Field conducted his studies with the help of the observation-centred method.
However, he did not mention that the study was held on Tertia island.
read a sample:
http://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-essays/gre-argumentthe-following-appeare…
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 434 350
No. of Characters: 2129 1500
No. of Different Words: 173 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.564 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.906 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.711 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 143 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.083 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.732 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.417 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.352 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.514 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.194 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
Dr. Karp tries to find the truth about t...
^^^^^^
Line 1, column 128, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'He' must be used with a third-person verb: 'supposes'.
Suggestion: supposes
...gues against the study of Dr. Field. He suppose that his methods were not accurate and ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 116, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nducted his studies with the help of the observation-centred method. The text con...
^^
Line 3, column 231, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'state'
Suggestion: state
...', however, it does not explicitly states what kind of method was used. Perhaps, ...
^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'still', 'at least', 'kind of', 'to sum up']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.275653923541 0.25644967241 107% => OK
Verbs: 0.140845070423 0.15541462614 91% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0744466800805 0.0836205057962 89% => OK
Adverbs: 0.056338028169 0.0520304965353 108% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0482897384306 0.0272364105082 177% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.108651911469 0.125424944231 87% => OK
Participles: 0.0241448692153 0.0416121511921 58% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.95952740829 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0160965794769 0.026700313972 60% => OK
Particles: 0.00201207243461 0.001811407834 111% => OK
Determiners: 0.0945674044266 0.113004496875 84% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0181086519115 0.0255425247493 71% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00603621730382 0.0127820249294 47% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2658.0 2731.13054187 97% => OK
No of words: 434.0 446.07635468 97% => OK
Chars per words: 6.12442396313 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56428161445 4.57801047555 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.34331797235 0.378187486979 91% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.274193548387 0.287650121315 95% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.184331797235 0.208842608468 88% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.119815668203 0.135150697306 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95952740829 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 207.018472906 90% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.430875576037 0.469332199767 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 46.7768652315 52.1807786196 90% => OK
How many sentences: 24.0 20.039408867 120% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0833333333 23.2022227129 78% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.9374342956 57.7814097925 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.75 141.986410481 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0833333333 23.2022227129 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.375 0.724660767414 52% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 45.502688172 51.9672348444 88% => OK
Elegance: 1.66393442623 1.8405768891 90% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.342684563374 0.441005458295 78% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.123005874212 0.135418324435 91% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.112313156677 0.0829849096947 135% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.546120840162 0.58762219726 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.147385675599 0.147661913831 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.143847362902 0.193483328276 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0410464120373 0.0970749176394 42% => The sentences are too close to each other.
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.419704101212 0.42659136922 98% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0865888191111 0.0774707102158 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.234145360813 0.312017818177 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0437524477661 0.0698173142475 63% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.33743842365 96% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.82512315271 187% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 5.36822660099 37% => OK
Neutral topic words: 6.0 2.82389162562 212% => OK
Total topic words: 13.0 14.657635468 89% => 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.