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.
With the information provided, the assumption leading to conclusion remains unfounded. This argument is well presented yet fat-fetched. This assumption claims that two anthropologists visited island of Tertia and they studied child rearing practice in this village which their conclusion is disparate each other. Hence this conclusion is ill-founded
The primary assumption underlying the author’s conclusion is that Dr. Field concluded that children were reared by an entire village rather than their parents twenty years ago. Nevertheless, he fails to preclude other possibility that this comparison is not valid due to the fact that their time is different. As a matter of fact, we cannot compare twenty years ago with recently or today. So, to reinforce the argument the author should have discussed about similar time which it is considerably vital.
Furthermore, the author of the assumptions avers that for obtaining accurate information, we should utilize interview-centered method rather than observation-centered approach. However, he fails to take the other possible reason into account that it might be possible that nature of interviews are distinctive such as number of question or kind of question that ask during interview. So, to reinforce the argument the author should have provided information about nature of interview.
Moreover, the author of the statements assumes that Dr.Karp investigated that the children spend a considerable amount of time with biological parents, Whereas, Dr. Field has asserted that children were reared by entire village. Without considering and ruling about other possibility that perhaps location is different, we should know information relevant to exact location which is highly imperative without any doubt.
In short, as discussed, this conclusion cannot be tenable. The author should have discussed about exact location, nature of interview, number of question, type of question. On the other hand to make a rigid conclusion is very myopic observation method. After all, feckless attempt with a fallible method could be nothing a fool's errand.
- Knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions today. 50
- Personal History Statement---1 70
- Parents today are more involved in their children's education than were parents in the past. 70
- Over the past two years, the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically. Many Central Plaza store owners believe that the decrease in their business is due to the numbe 50
- Statement of purposes 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 314, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...eir conclusion is disparate each other. Hence this conclusion is ill-founded The p...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 56, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Karp
...uthor of the statements assumes that Dr.Karp investigated that the children spend a ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 324, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'fools'' or 'fool's'?
Suggestion: fools'; fool's
...th a fallible method could be nothing a fools errand.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, hence, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, so, well, whereas, after all, in short, kind of, such as, as a matter of fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 55.5748502994 70% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1799.0 2260.96107784 80% => OK
No of words: 317.0 441.139720559 72% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.67507886435 5.12650576532 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21953715646 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0623457948 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.558359621451 0.468620217663 119% => OK
syllable_count: 543.6 705.55239521 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => 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: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 57.9285322078 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.4375 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8125 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.5625 5.70786347227 168% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.209032338538 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0583254051563 0.0743258471296 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0854695753965 0.0701772020484 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105159496891 0.128457276422 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0668724828568 0.0628817314937 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.66 12.5979740519 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.06 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.