At the same time, it may be true that for obtaining accurate information on Tertian child-rearing practices, future research on the subject should be conducted via the interview-centered method. However, the author’s conclusions on the survey results of anthropologist are petitio pricipiis which rest weakly on three primary assumptions that made the argument premises not strong enough to validate the sequel.
First, ratiocinating a conclusion has appealed reinforced justifications that had been acceded logistically. Citing the observation method of Dr. Field for attaining internal cultural information is displaying a marked contrast. For instance, maybe, Dr. Field was not familiar to traditions of Tertia island that made him observations formed by past stimulus and judgement. Hence, observation method would not provide the scholar sufficient and reliable information about the rear process of those people. All in all, it cannot be used to advocate the Dr. Field assumption.
Second, the other assumption made by the author to arrive at the conclusion of Dr. Krap is the wrong perception for having holistic view and adducing a particle trait of Tetia’s people culture by studying on group of islands. For example, attesting a particular culture in one specific island with survey group of islands is absolutely not reliable conclusion. Maybe, Tertia’s parents raise their offspring in a complete other way than neighbor islands. To strengthen his argument, the author would benefit from focusing interviews on Tertia island.
Finally, the Dr. Krap argument relies on this assumption that the quantity of children’s conversation about their parents is illustrating significant role of their parents in their lives genuinely. Albeit, conniving other parts of their community by only adducing length of their conservations is not a radical line of reason to reach that conclusion. As an exemplification, children might spend more time with their biological parents, with regarding to the fact that, the quality of their times is not included here, for example, the role of their teacher in rearing procedure could be much higher than their parents.
In sum, the author of this argument relies heavily on its assumptions, perhaps too heavily, which has made us to question soundness of the conclusion. The implementation of recommendation may or may not be true. Consequently, the originator should involve other testimonies and more compelling warrants and surveys that provoked the Doctors to accomplish their conclusions. With considering the wrong method of observing and holistic interviewing that were mentioned earlier.
- If rituals did not exist we have to invent them. We need ceremonies and rituals to help us define ourselves social and culturally. 83
- In this age of intensive media coverage, it is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for t 66
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position 94
- Statistics gathered over the past three decades show that the death rate is higher among those who do not have jobs than among those with regular employment. Unemployment, just like heart disease and cancer, is a significant health issue. While many healt 33
- Issue task Question authority Only by questioning accepted wisdom can we advance our understanding of the world 77
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/story/gre-argument-essay-topic-21-outline
----------------------------
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: 18 15
No. of Words: 401 350
No. of Characters: 2190 1500
No. of Different Words: 222 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.475 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.461 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.053 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 173 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 137 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 65 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.278 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.206 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.611 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.282 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.548 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.061 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, regarding, second, so, then, for example, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2269.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 401.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.65835411471 5.12650576532 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47492842339 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21044402341 2.78398813304 115% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 204.123752495 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.573566084788 0.468620217663 122% => OK
syllable_count: 675.9 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.9066682566 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.055555556 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2777777778 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.05555555556 5.70786347227 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.169417246173 0.218282227539 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0529898402661 0.0743258471296 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0479684182277 0.0701772020484 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0866615455365 0.128457276422 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0543805853571 0.0628817314937 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 14.3799401198 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.84 12.5979740519 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.93 8.32208582834 119% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 98.500998004 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => 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.