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.
In Dr.Karp’s article, he compared a study done twenty years ago with his own recent study about the child-rearing traditions in Tertia and concluded that his research is vaild method is surperior. Although the two anthropologists came up with different ideas and data, we cannot automatically agree with Dr.Karp just because his research is newer. There are still a lot of evidences need to make the conclusion. They can either strengthen the argument or weaken it.
The first evidence we need is whether the tradition has been changed over the twenty years or not, because twenty years is a period that is long enough for a community to adapt customs from outside world. Many islands were isolated from our modern society twenty years ago, but when researchers find them and communicate with them, they got in touch with modern society and therefore they might change their traditions over time. For example, an American documentary in 80s could show African tribal members wearing leaves and animal furs, but in 2000s they were already wearing T-shirts and driving cars. Without further evidence of whether the rear-baring tradition has been changed over twenty years or not, we cannot confidently conclude the validty of Dr.Karp’s argument. Because local communities in Tertia could be raising children together before, but then they changed it to raising children by biological parents when Dr.Karp did the research.
The second piece of evidence we urgently need is the distribution of the locations of the children who were interviewed. Dr.Field conducted his observation research only in Tertia, while Dr.Karp’s research team interviewed children not only in Tertia, but also in islands around it. Islands can have different cultures and traditions because of various reasons such as population, resources and landscape. If the village-based rearing tradition is absent in all islands around Tertia, that could significantly change the statistics in research. Even if rearing by the village is still the dominant way in Tertia, the statistics will still tell the opposite if Tertia only counts for a small percentage of the data. Therefore, we must know how many children in Tertia were interviewed and how many were not in Tertia. Otherwise we will get an incorrect impression from the analysis.
Another crucial piece of evidence we need is about the type of questions asked during interviews. Dr.Karp stated that ‘these children spend much more time talking about their biological parents,’ but that does not build a direct causal relationship between the topic and the people who look after them. They could be talking more about their parents because they miss them. We also do not know the details of the questionnaires, because the questions being asked may not be relevant to the rearing model but about other topics such as food or schooling. Therefore, it is hard for us to accept Dr.Karp’s argument without having more evidence about his design of interview.
In conclusion, in order to evaluate Dr.Karp’s argument, we need several pieces of evidence about his research. We need to know whether Tertia has been changed over the twenty years, the demographic distribution of the interviewees and the form of the questionaire. We need much more information to decide whether interview-centered approach is better than observation-centered approach in all field works
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-01 | Sophy@ | 66 | view |
| 2023-09-01 | Sophy@ | 58 | view |
| 2023-08-23 | dhruv7315 | 77 | view |
| 2023-08-19 | Mayuresh08 | 64 | view |
| 2023-08-18 | Dinesh4518 | 85 | view |
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 551 350
No. of Characters: 2782 1500
No. of Different Words: 257 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.845 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.049 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.776 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 206 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 152 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 100 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.958 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.137 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.302 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.504 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.211 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 7, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Karp
In Dr.Karp’s article, he compared a study done twe...
^^^^
Line 1, column 308, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Karp
..., we cannot automatically agree with Dr.Karp just because his research is newer. The...
^^^^
Line 3, column 545, Rule ID: IN_1990s[1]
Message: The article is probably missing here: 'in the 2000s'.
Suggestion: in the 2000s
...ers wearing leaves and animal furs, but in 2000s they were already wearing T-shirts and ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 761, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Karp
... confidently conclude the validty of Dr.Karp’s argument. Because local communities i...
^^^^
Line 3, column 932, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Karp
... children by biological parents when Dr.Karp did the research. The second piece o...
^^^^
Line 5, column 125, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Field
...f the children who were interviewed. Dr.Field conducted his observation research only...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 191, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Karp
...ation research only in Tertia, while Dr.Karp’s research team interviewed children no...
^^^^
Line 5, column 818, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Otherwise,
...viewed and how many were not in Tertia. Otherwise we will get an incorrect impression fro...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 102, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Karp
...f questions asked during interviews. Dr.Karp stated that ‘these children spend much ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 597, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Karp
...erefore, it is hard for us to accept Dr.Karp’s argument without having more evidence...
^^^^
Line 9, column 40, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Karp
... In conclusion, in order to evaluate Dr.Karp’s argument, we need several pieces of e...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, look, may, second, so, still, then, therefore, while, for example, in conclusion, such as, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 44.0 28.8173652695 153% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 73.0 55.5748502994 131% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2867.0 2260.96107784 127% => OK
No of words: 542.0 441.139720559 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28966789668 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82502781895 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89875886031 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 262.0 204.123752495 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.483394833948 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 857.7 705.55239521 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 4.96107784431 262% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.0189307288 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.458333333 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5833333333 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.25 5.70786347227 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 11.0 5.25449101796 209% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 15.0 4.67664670659 321% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.288440541046 0.218282227539 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0797891241288 0.0743258471296 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0617820489014 0.0701772020484 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163554272091 0.128457276422 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0791336061763 0.0628817314937 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 98.500998004 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.