In the passage, anthropologist Dr. Field studied the Tertian culture using observation-centered methods and came to the conclusion that Tertian children are raised by the entire village instead of their biological parents. The anthropologist Dr. Karp uses interview-centered method to study child-rearing practices, and from the fact that children in Tertian village talk more about their biological parent he challenged Dr. Field’s results, stating Tertian children are raised by their biological parents and Dr. Field’s research was invalid. For that reason, some anthropologists conclude to obtain accurate results on Tertian child-raising, future research should use interview-centered methods. Although out of good intention to obtain accurate information, Dr. Field and aforementioned anthropologists do not make a solid argument, and information is needed to further strengthen their conclusions.
First, using interview-centered approach, Dr. Field draws the conclusion that Tertian children are raised by their biological parents simply based on the results that children talk more about their biological parents than other adults. To make a cogent case, Dr. Karp is required to provide evidence that the amount of information given by the children is an accurate indication of who raise the children. Dr. Karp needs to exclude the possibilities that the child may talk about his biological parents more simply because their intimacy, because they spend more time together talking, while other adults all participate in the child-rearing practices. Evidences are also needed to exclude the possibilities that the questions during the interviews are misleading, skewing the children towards talking more about their biological parents. Such information is crucial to convincingly draw the conclusion that Tertian children are actually raised by their biological parents.
Second, with the conclusion drawn from the interview-based research, Dr. Karp challenges Dr. Field’s conclusion, stating that the results of Dr. Field were invalid. To bolster the argument, Dr. Karp needs to assure that the different conclusion in Dr. Field’s research is a result of invalid research, while the child-rearing practices in Tertia remain unchanged overtime. Without such assertions, it is entirely possible that the children in Tertia were indeed raised by all adults in the village 20 years ago, while shifted towards methods involving primarily biological parents in the recent years due to a better economy situation.
Third, assuming Dr. Karp’s research is correct while Dr. Field’s invalid, anthropologists draw the conclusion that interview-centered method is more suitable for research on child-rearing in Tertia, and future research should be conducted via this method. To solidify this argument, anthropologists should assure that interview-centered method is accurate under all circumstances, while observation-centered method is fallacious all the time. Without information proving this, possibilities remain that observation methods can lead to more accurate results under certain situations, like the child is too shy to talk or embarrassed to talk about his or her biological parents who raise the child. Or maybe the child are not willing to talk about his or her parents for they abuse him or her.
In conclusion, the argument in the passage is not well-supported. More evidence is needed to prove the amount of information given by the children is an accurate indication of who raise the children, the different conclusion in Dr. Field’s research is a result of invalid research instead of ever-changing child-rearing practices, and interview-centered method is superior under all circumstances.
- 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 55
- Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sur 66
- The following appeared as a letter to the editor from a Central Plaza store owner."Over the past two years, the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically. Many Central 92
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not exactly
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
--------------------
sample arguments:
https://www.testbig.com/story/gre-argument-essay-topic-21-outline
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 548 350
No. of Characters: 3108 1500
No. of Different Words: 197 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.838 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.672 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.357 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 247 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 200 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 131 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 83 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30.444 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.029 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.556 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.419 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.612 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.195 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 803, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... her parents for they abuse him or her. In conclusion, the argument in the passa...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, if, may, second, so, then, third, well, while, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3209.0 2260.96107784 142% => OK
No of words: 548.0 441.139720559 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.85583941606 5.12650576532 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83832613839 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.48925103648 2.78398813304 125% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.388686131387 0.468620217663 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 953.1 705.55239521 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 69.8099050243 57.8364921388 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 178.277777778 119.503703932 149% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.4444444444 23.324526521 131% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.11111111111 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.263852384864 0.218282227539 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0996763600853 0.0743258471296 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0702845753952 0.0701772020484 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.165705127233 0.128457276422 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0657241901554 0.0628817314937 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 21.4 14.3799401198 149% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.57 48.3550499002 67% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 12.197005988 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.3 12.5979740519 137% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 98.500998004 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 11.9071856287 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.