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 examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
Dr. Karp believes that Dr. Field’s conclusion about the tertian village culture is invalid because it uses an observation-centered approach and that the interview-centered approach that his team of graduate students are currently using would yield a much more accurate understanding of the traditions in Tertia. Dr. Karp believes this because of his recent interviews with children living in the group of islands that include Tertia. However, this argument is rife with unwarranted assumptions and before this article can be properly regarded as being appropriate, the following questions must first be answered.
First of all, the argument depends on the assumption that the culture of Tertia is still the same as it was 20 years ago. In other words, is the culture of Tertia, events and ways of life of the Tertia population still the same as it was 20 years ago? It is possible that Tertia has been affected by civilization and the culture of the people are not the same as it was 20 years ago. Further, it is possible that the ruler-ship of Tertia has changed hands over the course of 20 years, and that the new ruler has brought in several changes to the customs and culture of Tertia. If either of these hold water, then the argument itself is flawed and the conclusion is significantly weakened.
Secondly, the argument depends on the assumption that the children in the interviews are representative of the population of Tertia. Maybe the children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia that the author interviewed were made up of children from other islands and that the children of the Tertia population were not included in this interview. It is also possible that Tertia is fearful of outsiders and do not entertain interviews and the author had to settle for children from neighboring islands. If either of these scenarios prove to be true, then the authors argument is flawed, and the argument does not hold water.
Additionally, the argument relies on the assumption that the children in the said interview actually relate correct information and that them talking more about their biological parents than other adults indicates that these children were raised by their parents. It is possible that these children talk about their parents mostly because they miss their parents and not necessarily because they were raised by them. Maybe, they weren’t raised by them and that these children basically talk about their parents from memory. If either one of these scenarios prove true, then the authors argument is significantly flawed and more evidence would be required to actually make sense of the argument.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now is flawed as it relies on several unwarranted assumptions, if the author is able to offer more evidence as to the conditions and logistics of the interview that was carried out, then it would be possible to understand the appropriateness of the interview and contrast its results with the observation centered-approach of Dr. Field.
| 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: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 499 350
No. of Characters: 2480 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.726 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.97 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.839 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 179 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 138 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 29.353 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.177 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.588 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.385 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.586 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.236 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 573, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...se scenarios prove to be true, then the authors argument is flawed, and the argument do...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 579, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...of these scenarios prove true, then the authors argument is significantly flawed and mo...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 696, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...to actually make sense of the argument. In conclusion, the argument as it stands...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, as to, in conclusion, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 55.0 28.8173652695 191% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2535.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 498.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09036144578 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72397222731 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88720736273 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.399598393574 0.468620217663 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 771.3 705.55239521 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 22.8473053892 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 74.6136067445 57.8364921388 129% => OK
Chars per sentence: 149.117647059 119.503703932 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.2941176471 23.324526521 126% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.41176470588 5.70786347227 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 8.20758483034 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.216394299957 0.218282227539 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0775798823466 0.0743258471296 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0632614214249 0.0701772020484 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11846595429 0.128457276422 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0669624918546 0.0628817314937 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 14.3799401198 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.5 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.83 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.1389221557 122% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.