Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia. Using an observation-centered approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. Recently another anthropologist, Dr. Karp, visited the group of islands that includes Tertia and used the interview-centered method to study child-rearing practices. In the interviews that Dr. Karp conducted with children living in this group of islands, the children spent much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. Dr. Karp decided that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture must be invalid. Some anthropologists recommend that to obtain accurate information on Tertian child-rearing practices, future research on the subject should be conducted via the interview-centered method.
At first glimpse, the argument seems to be plausible. However, a closer scrutinity of the evidence reveals that a lot of singinificant queries yet to be responded to consider the argument valid and irrefutable. In this assertion, the author concludes that to know more about tertian village culture on child-rearing practices, future research should be conducted via the interview-centered method. To substantiate this, the author gives an example of a research done by Dr. Karp based on interview-centered method, which opposes the research done Dr. Field by observation-centered approach. However, before the argument properly evaluated, three evidence is need to be discussed.
First of all, the author makes a conlusion about a research done by Dr. Field by observation centered approach, where he concluded that children in the tertia village were reared by the entire village rather than their parents. But the author did not give any kinds of data by which we can deny this method and recommend other method. Also, the research is done around 20 years ago. SO, there is a clear time gaps to draw conclusion that we can not recommend it for the future research.
Secondly, the author describes the research done by Dr. Karp based on interview-centered method, where he denies the research done by Dr. Field. The author Just states that the children spent much more time with their biological parents than other adults in the village. Here, spending time is not a good reason to draw the conclusion. Also, it may be possible that they spend a lot of times with other childrens in the villages. Also, the author again did not provide any actual number to show evidence. Morever, conclusion based on a research can not be done just for only one reason. There can be a lot of things related to their culture like the environment in their schools.
Least but not last, the author did not give any comparison between this two methods to draw conclusion. He should make a chart and show all the advantages of interview centered method compared to observation-centered method. However, he can show other research too which is done in the recent times. He should compare a recent method to a method of 20 years before.
Therefore, the argument can be considered as untenable due to lack of persuasive shreds of evidence and unstated assumptions. To further fortify this argument, the author is suggested to provide the actual data to compare this two methods, some actual reasons to deny the first method, and some advantages of interview method compared to other methods. By stating these evidence, the argument can be considered as tenable and irrefutable.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 441 350
No. of Characters: 2163 1500
No. of Different Words: 186 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.583 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.905 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.912 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.174 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.619 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.609 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.321 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.507 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.11 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2241.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 441.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08163265306 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58257569496 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00185821791 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.442176870748 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 694.8 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 50.9342583803 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.4347826087 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1739130435 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.52173913043 5.70786347227 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.157539344073 0.218282227539 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0468586862154 0.0743258471296 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0862990639989 0.0701772020484 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100097099804 0.128457276422 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0783319759086 0.0628817314937 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.3799401198 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.02 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.