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.
The argument claims that debate about rearing children in Tertia by entire village from Dr. Field is controversial, and it corroborates Dr. Karp interviews with children and his research disputes the Dr. Field’s conclusion. However, there are divergent aspects of unsubstantiated evidence that doesn’t match the argument; even it will be illogical to fathom.
First of all, there is no specific evidence that interview with only Tertia children. Dr. Karp showed that children are talking about only their parents, not entire village. However, he gathered groups of islands including Tertia, which means that some children are from other island are talking about their parents. The proportion of talking only about their parents can have more than talking about the entire village, which only Tertia children talked about.
Furthermore, there is no specific evidence that Dr. Field is showing the same conclusion as the research from twenty years ago. Since there is specific evidence that Dr. Field has the same opinion as he had twenty years ago, Dr. Karp can’t refute this idea. Dr. Field maybe change his mind; maybe he has the same idea as Dr. Karp present time research.
The other non-evidence is that Dr. Field’s observation-centered approach is invalid. Dr. Karp didn’t explain what was wrong in Dr. Field research. Dr. Karp is only showing recent interview proving children don’t really talk about their biological parents. However, even in those interview-centered method hasn’t show how does the method work. It can be possible that observation-centered approach is better than interview-centered method if there is no explanation about the process that was behaved.
Conclusively, the argument is aggravated by the assumption that since Dr. Field has controversial debate about child rearing by entire village from Tertia, Dr. Karp refute this idea; however, if the argument adduce the argument with explanation above, then it will be more cogent to understand.
| 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 |
- Claim: Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system.Reason: Laws cannot change what is in people’s hearts or minds. 66
- Some believe that society should try to save every plant and animal species, despite the expense to humans in effort, time and financial well-being. Others believe that society need no make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jo 70
- The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries. 51
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field. 66
- Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws. write a reponse in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure 50
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, if, may, really, so, then, talking about, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 11.1786427146 18% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 55.5748502994 56% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1713.0 2260.96107784 76% => OK
No of words: 310.0 441.139720559 70% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.52580645161 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07496520796 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 204.123752495 71% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.464516129032 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 505.8 705.55239521 72% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.9225536576 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.2 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6666666667 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.53333333333 5.70786347227 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.294209310508 0.218282227539 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.125219191456 0.0743258471296 168% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0801930234673 0.0701772020484 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.188319699009 0.128457276422 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0516467374577 0.0628817314937 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.79 12.5979740519 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 98.500998004 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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: 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.