Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observation 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 group of islands that included 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 Tertia 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.
The author of the argument claims that Dr. Field's deduction about Tertia village is not valid and thus the observation-centered approach followed by him to study the cultures is also invalid. The author also argues that the interview-centered method will establish a much more accurate understanding of child rearing traditions then observation-centered method. The line of reasoning presented in the argument is flawed since the author has made several unsubstantiated assumptions and has provided incomplete evidences.
Citing interviews of children living in the group of islands that include Tertia, the author reports that these children spend much more time talking about their biological parents instead of other adults in the village. The term used by the author is too vague. Talking more about their biological parents does not mean they are reared by their parents. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that interview. For instance it might be possible that the interview questions are more dedicated towards parents of the children rather than other adults in the village. It might be possible that the interview does not represent the majority, or perhaps the number of children in the interview from Tertia is far more less than the children from other group of islands. Unless the interview is fully representative, valid, and reliable, it cannot be used to effectively back the author points.
Moreover, the author of the argument compares Dr. Field’s observation approach with his interviews approach and fails to provide any clear justification that approach used by Dr. Field was dubious or invalid. It may be possible that both approaches conclude to different conclusions, or possibly the approach used by the author is flawed. The argument would have been stronger had it provided more information regarding how Dr. Field's had observed the Tertia Island twenty years ago.
In addition, the author of this argument also makes a tragic assumption by supposing that interview-centered approach that his team of graduate students is currently using in Tertia will provide more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions in Tertia and other islands. It may be possible that the collection method of data is wrong and may be the data is not correct. Furthermore, if it is assumed that it provides accurate results in Tertia it is not necessary that it will provide the same result in other islands as well. It may be possible that children of the other islands do not answer the interview questions honestly. This is the major flaw in the argument and should be at least acknowledged by the author, perhaps improved upon by implementing a normed interview asking wide range of questions from children of Tertia and other islands as well.
To sum up, the argument in its current state does not make up a cogent case because of its weak evidences and unreliable assumptions made by the author. The author needs to provide more information and clarify the above stated assumptions to strengthen his argument.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-05-14 | Anjama Dutta | 55 | view |
| 2016-08-13 | singh.bikram0111 | 70 | view |
- Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observation that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with c 70
- Que :Over the past two years , the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarders has increased dramatically. Many Central Plaza store Owner believe that the decrease in their business is due to the 54
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 363, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...tions then observation-centered method. The line of reasoning presented in the argu...
^^^
Line 3, column 723, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'less' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: less
...ren in the interview from Tertia is far more less than the children from other group of i...
^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'furthermore', 'honestly', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'regarding', 'so', 'then', 'thus', 'well', 'at least', 'for instance', 'in addition', 'talking about', 'to sum up']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.239622641509 0.25644967241 93% => OK
Verbs: 0.166037735849 0.15541462614 107% => OK
Adjectives: 0.103773584906 0.0836205057962 124% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0735849056604 0.0520304965353 141% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0415094339623 0.0272364105082 152% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.135849056604 0.125424944231 108% => OK
Participles: 0.0528301886792 0.0416121511921 127% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.01218415016 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0132075471698 0.026700313972 49% => Some infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.00377358490566 0.001811407834 208% => OK
Determiners: 0.101886792453 0.113004496875 90% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.022641509434 0.0255425247493 89% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00377358490566 0.0127820249294 30% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3058.0 2731.13054187 112% => OK
No of words: 492.0 446.07635468 110% => OK
Chars per words: 6.21544715447 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70967865282 4.57801047555 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.396341463415 0.378187486979 105% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.302845528455 0.287650121315 105% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.233739837398 0.208842608468 112% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.128048780488 0.135150697306 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01218415016 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 207.018472906 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.44512195122 0.469332199767 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 50.5041156453 52.1807786196 97% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 24.6 23.2022227129 106% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.4692091472 57.7814097925 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 152.9 141.986410481 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.6 23.2022227129 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.85 0.724660767414 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 54.8845528455 51.9672348444 106% => OK
Elegance: 1.52348993289 1.8405768891 83% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.326219881921 0.441005458295 74% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.140767785292 0.135418324435 104% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0904009103026 0.0829849096947 109% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.618361624371 0.58762219726 105% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.133053082206 0.147661913831 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.142322097045 0.193483328276 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0620788958207 0.0970749176394 64% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.377093406765 0.42659136922 88% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0918354212384 0.0774707102158 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.212870441582 0.312017818177 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0616858733513 0.0698173142475 88% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.87684729064 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 10.0 5.36822660099 186% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 14.657635468 130% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.