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 examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
lIn the passage, the author recommends the interview-centered method to investigate with child-rearing traditions in Tertia and positively predicts its validity. Quite convincing though such recommendation appears at first glance, the author's recommendation might be implausible due to several unsubstantiated assumptions which, if prove unwarranted, will seriously challenge the author's recommendation.
To start off, the author's recommendation heavily relies on the assumption that the author's recent interview is objective, sufficiently demonstrating that children in Tertia have been reared by their parents. Based on the assumption, the author therefore raises a question about validity of Dr.Field's previous conclusion. However, such assumption is potentially problematic, because such interview led by the author may only collected limited samples. Moreover, nor do we know how children describe their parents during the conservation. If it turns out that the author just collects a small proportion of children samples that could not represent overall status in Tertia, or children's talking about their parents is mainly about the lack of care from them, the author's reasoning will be weakened.
Furthermore, even if the aforementioned interview supports the author's previous assumption, we need to re-examine another assumption that Dr. Field's conclusion is unwarranted and therefore the observation-centered approach becomes invalid as well. It is possible that Dr.Field and his team resorted to incorrect investigation method, which greatly weakened its conclusion's validity. Also, it is of equal probability that such approach just couldn't fit for the case of Tertia. If any of the aforementioned possibilities is true, we are inclined to believe that observation-center approach may still be applicable for cultural investigation, despite its failure in the Tertia's case.
Last but not least, while all of the assumptions mentioned above prove valid, the author's recommendation is still unnecessary due to the assumption regarding the efficiency of undergoing research conducted by the author's team. Claiming that his or her team composed mainly by students will gain a much better result, the author seems too optimistic. It is possible that graduate students lack sufficient skills to establish a well-designed investigation, which leads to inaccurate data and impacts the efficiency of the ensuing conclusion. Also, the author hastily comes to the conclusion that villagers are willing to accept further investigations, but doesn't discuss whether they don't want to expose their private status any more. If students were too young to grasp with key factors of interview-centered method, or local residents disgusted with further cultural research, the author's rosy conclusion about a better comprehension about Tertia's child-rearing cultures will turn out untenable.
In summary, whether we should implement the author's recommendation heavily hinges on the validity of the aforementioned assumptions. If any of the aforementioned assumptions prove unwarranted, the author's recommendation could become little more than his or her wishful thinking and therefore he or she should resort to other solutions rather than sticking to his preferred interview-centered approach.
Comments
e-rater score report
read this sample:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-appeared…
------------------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 12 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 481 350
No. of Characters: 2774 1500
No. of Different Words: 244 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.683 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.767 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.462 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 219 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 181 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 144 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 93 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.722 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.556 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.722 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.372 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.583 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.186 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: LIn
lIn the passage, the author recommends the ...
^^^
Line 1, column 236, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...mmendation appears at first glance, the authors recommendation might be implausible due...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 381, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...warranted, will seriously challenge the authors recommendation. To start off, the au...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 19, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...rs recommendation. To start off, the authors recommendation heavily relies on the as...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 294, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Fields
... raises a question about validity of Dr.Fields previous conclusion. However, such assu...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 272, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Field
...invalid as well. It is possible that Dr.Field and his team resorted to incorrect inve...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 441, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...ual probability that such approach just couldnt fit for the case of Tertia. If any of t...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 27, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...tias case. Last but not least, while all of the assumptions mentioned above prove valid...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 83, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ptions mentioned above prove valid, the authors recommendation is still unnecessary due...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 655, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...g to accept further investigations, but doesnt discuss whether they dont want to expos...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 683, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ations, but doesnt discuss whether they dont want to expose their private status any...
^^^^
Line 9, column 45, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ummary, whether we should implement the authors recommendation heavily hinges on the va...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 198, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...oned assumptions prove unwarranted, the authors recommendation could become little more...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, so, still, therefore, well, while, in summary, such as, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2823.0 2260.96107784 125% => OK
No of words: 476.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.93067226891 5.12650576532 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67091256922 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.50136099417 2.78398813304 126% => OK
Unique words: 258.0 204.123752495 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.542016806723 0.468620217663 116% => OK
syllable_count: 846.9 705.55239521 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.0155586823 57.8364921388 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 156.833333333 119.503703932 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.4444444444 23.324526521 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.72222222222 5.70786347227 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 13.0 5.25449101796 247% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.102646987696 0.218282227539 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0380105928949 0.0743258471296 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0282670558363 0.0701772020484 40% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0621800924915 0.128457276422 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0309514602781 0.0628817314937 49% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.7 14.3799401198 137% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 28.17 48.3550499002 58% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.197005988 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.41 12.5979740519 138% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.5 8.32208582834 114% => OK
difficult_words: 138.0 98.500998004 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.