The argument discusses two different approach to a certain subject field, in different time-period. However, in order to do that the author needs to be provided more evidence to support his claims. The argument is presented with certain holes or assumptions which weakens the argument.
First of all, the author assumes that an ancient research, which is from twenty years ago would justify a field that is so evolving, culture now as well. The author wants the audience to persuade on the fact that Dr. Field’s research which was two decades ago, is flawed as it didn’t corelate with the author’s current work. To believe what author claims, audience might need support on how the data was wrong when it was collected. Author assumes that the culture and traditions are exactly same as it was when the first research was carried out.
Second of all, the data which the author encountered with was vast with what the previous research was about. This undermines the result collected from the particular island, Tertia. The author assumes the fact that expanding the field set wouldn’t alter the results or findings. The author mentions that the anthropologist’s research is merely a part of author’s original dataset. The author wants the audience to ignore the fact that extracting a minor part from his own research, will change the final outcome.
The author also claims that Tertia’s children don’t talk about other adults from the village and rather talks about their own biological parents only. The inevitable fact is that what kind of questions were posed to children, as author claims his research was interview based. The author assumes that the readers might not need evidence to support that the questions were fairly structured.
Finally, the author refutes Dr. Field observation-centered approach claiming that his interview-based approach provides true results, despite the fact that there is no such commendable evidence provided to support this claim. The anecdote circumvent that the observation-centered approach is invalid for a whole wide topic culture. The author assumes that one falsely acquired study is enough to state a study is not suitable for a whole vast subject i.e. cultures. Avast, the research is not yet completed as mentioned by the author, still he is brave enough to refute the previous findings afore the final results.
Furthermore, the author needs to mention appropriate evidence to bolster his research and claims. The author needs to be more specific about how his research grew gradually. There needs to be evidence provided in order to strengthen his view.
- 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 75
- Question Authority Only by questioning accepted wisdom can we advance our understanding of the world 33
- The purpose of higher education is to prepare students for the future but classen students are at a serious disadvantage in the competition for post college employment due to the university s burdensome breadth requirements classen s job placement rate 66
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: 22 15
No. of Words: 426 350
No. of Characters: 2135 1500
No. of Different Words: 197 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.543 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.012 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.673 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 160 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 122 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 32 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.364 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.981 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.409 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.361 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.361 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.135 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 383, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ly a part of author’s original dataset. The author wants the audience to ignore the...
^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...earch, will change the final outcome. The author also claims that Tertia’s childr...
^^^
Line 4, column 152, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...bout their own biological parents only. The inevitable fact is that what kind of qu...
^^^
Line 4, column 278, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...laims his research was interview based. The author assumes that the readers might n...
^^^
Line 5, column 240, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'circumvents'.
Suggestion: circumvents
...ded to support this claim. The anecdote circumvent that the observation-centered approach ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, second, so, still, then, well, kind of, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 22.0 13.6137724551 162% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2204.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 423.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21040189125 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53508145475 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77909430097 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.479905437352 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 648.9 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 17.0 8.76447105788 194% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.9612107372 57.8364921388 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.181818182 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2272727273 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.54545454545 5.70786347227 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.163688338641 0.218282227539 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0521920713731 0.0743258471296 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.04774659267 0.0701772020484 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0840627840993 0.128457276422 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0384207375055 0.0628817314937 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 98.500998004 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.