In the article written by Dr. Karp - an anthropologist, it has been mentioned that the study conducted by Dr. Field does not lead to a valid conclusion and that the approach that is based on observations for studying cultures is not valid as well and that interview-centered studies are more valid. The anthropologist came to this conclusion based on the research that he has conducted recently that showed that children talk about their parents most of the time. This statement contradicts Dr. Field’s statement which states that children are raised by other people in the village and not by their own parents. Although this conclusion seems to be valid, there are some statements that should be answered in order to properly evaluate it.
First of all, According to Dr. Field’s conclusion, it shows that the conditions 20 years ago and now are comparable. In other words, the comparison between the two ages has shown that the circumstances of the study are the same then and now and that nothing has changed since then. However, this may not be true. A lot of changes take place as time flies. This is even applicable to the qualities of people. It cannot be taken out of consideration that the qualities and traits of people change as generations pass by. The conditions of study that were prevailing 20 years ago may not be the same now. Maybe the children in the island of Tertia were different a while ago. Perhaps the culture changed in the past years. It may also be possible that children of the present age prefer to be raised by their biological parents. In addition, maybe the parents themselves feel that they need to rear their children. We do not know if any of these criteria have been taken into consideration for the recent study. If any of these situations happen to be true, the conclusion drawn is not as strong as we might think.
Secondly, the anthropologist assumes that since the present age children talk more about their parents more than any other villagers, they are being raised by them and that the former conclusion by Dr. Field is invalid. This statement seems to be based on an assumption and cannot be deemed correct. The author immaturely presumed that talking about parents necessarily means that the kids are being brought up by their parents. The children could be being raised by the other adults in the village but they talk about their parents often. It could be that the children prefer being reared by their biological parents but that is not being followed as a tradition in the island. Hence, the children are spending a large amount of time talking about their parents. If any of these are true, the argument is weakened up to a large extent.
Lastly, the author assumes that the graduate students conducting the study will yield accurate results. However, this sentence may not be valid for a lot of reasons. How do we know that the students are necessarily doing the interviews the right way? Do we know if the author has accompanied them during the study? If he did, maybe he did not have the opportunity to monitor all the interviews being taken. Perhaps the author did not accompany the students at all. As the article clearly states that the people conducting the study are graduate students, we cannot completely know if they’ve had prior experience in a similar field. Maybe they do not know how it is done and have made some assumptions of their own while collecting data. Even if the entire interview has been moderated, the results may not be accurate. If any of these assumptions are correct, the argument does not hold water.
To conclude, the argument is flawed because of several stated/ unstated assumptions. A proper conclusion could only be drawn if these gaps are filled by the author. Without a complete understanding of these points, any of these studies cannot be deemed invalid.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 16 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 37 15
No. of Words: 666 350
No. of Characters: 3122 1500
No. of Different Words: 253 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.08 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.688 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.589 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 196 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 150 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.376 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.676 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.248 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.413 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.114 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:
In the article written by Dr. Karp - an ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ed in order to properly evaluate it. First of all, According to Dr. Field’s c...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t, the argument does not hold water. To conclude, the argument is flawed beca...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, well, while, in addition, talking about, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 49.0 19.6327345309 250% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 26.0 13.6137724551 191% => OK
Pronoun: 72.0 28.8173652695 250% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 73.0 55.5748502994 131% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3206.0 2260.96107784 142% => OK
No of words: 665.0 441.139720559 151% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.82105263158 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.07814867018 4.56307096286 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6640935967 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 270.0 204.123752495 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.406015037594 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 976.5 705.55239521 138% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 4.96107784431 262% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 37.0 19.7664670659 187% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 50.7376845842 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.6486486486 119.503703932 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.972972973 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.70786347227 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 27.0 4.67664670659 577% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.174421664232 0.218282227539 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0448259120438 0.0743258471296 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0566095757666 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0959775295248 0.128457276422 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0619229205412 0.0628817314937 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.3 14.3799401198 72% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 48.3550499002 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 12.197005988 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.38 12.5979740519 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.35 8.32208582834 88% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 98.500998004 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.