In the article written by an anthropologist, DR. Karp, it had been mentioned that Dr. Field's report about the child-rearing practices in Tertia is wrong and his approach is also wrong so that new approach- interview centered- should be followed so that the better results can be found. He gave this recommendation based upon his research on the group of islands that includes Tertia. Outwardly, it seems plausible but upon the closer inspection, it suffers from several stated and unstated assumptions. So, for the better evaluation of the given argument, the following assumptions should be considered.
First of all, the author assumes that the Field study and the report given by the Field is wrong, however, it might be possible that the study of both the anthropologists was right. Because there is a 20 years gap between the two studies. It might be possible that, twenty years ago, children were primarily cared for by the entire village and they practice the joint family system. But, with the passage of time, people become more aware of independent and started a nuclear family system and their children are raised by their biological parents mostly. If this assumption holds true then, the author's recommendation will be undermined.
Secondly, the author impetuously gave his recommendations as it might be possible that the study of both the Field and Carp were wright, as Dr. Field carried his research only in Tertia and based upon that findings he gave his recommendations where as Dr. Carp carried out his research in several islands out of which one is Tertia. It might be possible that the children in the Tertia islands are primarily rared by society, but because of the child-rearing practices in the other islands were mainly by their biological parents as a result, overall results were found that child-rearing practices were primarily by their parents. If this is true then the given recommendations will prove less effective.
Furthermore, the author hastily assumes that the interview center approach is good over the observation center approach for the study, but it might be possible that the observation center approach is better or both the approaches are better without proper judgment. So, it is necessary to examine possible alternatives prior to giving any recommendation.
In a nutshell, the author hastily assumes that his approach of collecting data is right and his findings are correct and previous anthropologist was wrong based upon impetuous generalization, so for the better evaluation of the given argument and the increase in the reliability of the given argument, possible alternatives should be studied so that the given argument validity will be increased.
- Society should identify those children who have special talents and provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your 62
- The following appeared in a health newsletter."Nosinia is an herb that many users report to be as effective as prescription medications at fighting allergy symptoms. Researchers recently compared Nosinia to a placebo in 95 men and women with seasonal 50
- Argument Topic: "The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company. "According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced 59
- A recent study rating 300 male and female Mentian advertising executives according to the average number of hours they sleep per night showed an association between the amount of sleep the executives need and the success of their firms. Of the advertising 77
- We can learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take 66
Essay evaluation 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: 15 15
No. of Words: 437 350
No. of Characters: 2225 1500
No. of Different Words: 185 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.572 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.092 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.89 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 162 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 123 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 86 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 29.133 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 17.258 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.8 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.341 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.478 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.075 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 3 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 183, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Because” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... of both the anthropologists was right. Because there is a 20 years gap between the two...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 597, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...If this assumption holds true then, the authors recommendation will be undermined. S...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 244, Rule ID: WHERE_AS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'whereas'?
Suggestion: whereas
...at findings he gave his recommendations where as Dr. Carp carried out his research in se...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2276.0 2260.96107784 101% => OK
No of words: 437.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20823798627 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57214883401 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96536781187 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 204.123752495 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.443935926773 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 692.1 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 103.84857892 57.8364921388 180% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.25 119.503703932 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.3125 23.324526521 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0625 5.70786347227 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.237239122539 0.218282227539 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0753515807466 0.0743258471296 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.066365500507 0.0701772020484 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125851745124 0.128457276422 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.080755490092 0.0628817314937 128% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.8 14.3799401198 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => 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.