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.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The author argues that Dr. Field conclusion regarding children in Tertia is not correct. Dr. Field’s study showed that children were reared by the entire village rather than their biological parents. However, the author claims that this observation is not logical and most of the children in the region were grown by their biological parents. However, the author’s interview and results have 3 main flaws described as below.
First, The number of children interviewed is not mentioned. For example, if the group of children contained less than 30 people, it is not logical to reach a conclusion. Statistically, a sample can be taken as Normal distribution, if the number of the observation is more than 30. Accordingly, the put more emphasis on the claim, the author should mention the number of observations.
Secondly, The author says that children in the village spent more time to talk about their biological parents rather than other members of the village. The allegation has a considerable flaw. Admittedly, the children talking about their parent could be because of their reservation regarding their biological parents and are worried about the way they are growing up in the small society. Furthermore, the author should have mentioned the content of the interview and the questions being asked by children. If he/she asked constantly about their parent, how could children avoid to talk about them?
Finally, the author’s chose the sample of his observation from a group of islands. It is true that Tetia is located in the region but how many children he selected to talk with them. The author failed to mention the number of children in the Terita. For example, it is completely possible that no children from Tetia were selected. Although his allegation could be right for the whole region, it cannot be reasonable to consider it for the Terita.
In conclusion, the author cannot rule out the Dr. Field's claim which is the children of Terita were raised by the members of the village instead of their own parents. because he did not declare the number of individuals being interviewed, the question he asked from children, and the number of children in the sample are from Terita.
- tpo 11 85
- In twenty years, there will be fewer cars in use than there are today. 70
- Is it important to keep your old friends than making new friends? 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? People now can better protect the environment than they could in the past 76
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Television advertising directed toward young children (aged two to five) should not be allowed. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 66
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/story/gre-argument-essay-topic-21-outline
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 365 350
No. of Characters: 1787 1500
No. of Different Words: 154 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.371 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.896 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.575 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 136 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 95 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 60 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.211 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.739 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.789 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.366 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.569 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.115 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 209, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... Statistically, a sample can be taken as Normal distribution, if the number of th...
^^
Line 5, column 167, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Because
...e village instead of their own parents. because he did not declare the number of indivi...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, for example, in conclusion, talking about, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1851.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 364.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08516483516 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36792674256 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7694310825 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 204.123752495 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.453296703297 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 551.7 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.0908125406 57.8364921388 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.55 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2 23.324526521 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.3 5.70786347227 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0509113860579 0.218282227539 23% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0216345202994 0.0743258471296 29% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0524124615257 0.0701772020484 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0381138005938 0.128457276422 30% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0490487742569 0.0628817314937 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.78 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.