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.
The author proposes that children in Tertia are fostered by interview-centered method will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions in island of Tertia than observation-centered approach. To buttress his/her argument, the author cites the following evidences: first, results from Dr. Field's observation-centered approach show children in Tertia were reared by an entire village whereas recent interviews by Dr. Karp indicate that children spent more time talking about their biological parents. The issue has its own merit, but due to lack of comprehensive evidences, the conclusion is unsubstantiated.
To begin with, the author fails to provide the information about the change of Tertia over the past twenty years. The chronological comparison is unwarranted since they measure disparate time dimensions. Dr. Field conducted his observation twenty years ago and it is plausible that the child-rearing traditions has changed dramatically. If fids were fostered by entire village twenty years ago but are fostered by their parents today because of tradition revolution or new settlement, then both methods contribute to the credible conclusions, thereby weakening author's argument.
Moreover, the author assumes that the result of his/her recent interview is credible and convincing. The assumption seems valid at first glance. Nonetheless, after careful investigation, some questions remain unexamined. The interview about the children living in group of island might not be accurate and representative. The piece of evidence that assistant in our evaluation is detailed information about the whole interview processes and sample space. How long is the interview? What are the content of questionnaires? How many people took part in the survey? Who are the target participants? According to the article, Dr. Karp and his graduate students conducted interviews of "children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia". Even though interview method is grounded, there still could be discrepancy between two researchers. It could turn out to be the case, for example, that children on Tertia are raised communally, while those on other islands nearby are raised by their biological parents.
The interview result, in addition, shows that more kids spend much more time talking with their parents. Nevertheless, the time spending talking with their parents does not necessarily mean they are raised by their biological parents. They might just say how they missed their parents or how their parents had left them in a communal environment. The conclusion got from the ambiguous definition of rearing is unlikely to get support to the author's argument. Last but not least, we are not offered information about details of Dr. Karp's interview-centered approach. Is it properly designed? Is it objective? It is plausible that Dr. Karp did not conduct the interview-centered approach well, but we cannot thus deny the significance of such approach in general. It is also too naive to conclude that interview-centered method is inherently more valid than observational-centered approach. In order to fully evaluate this claim, we need to study more examples of interview-based and observational-based anthropological results respectively.
To sum up, as it stands, the author's conclusion is drawn by incomplete evidences that curtail its validity. To further strengthen his/her argument, the author is recommended to provide the evidences as follows: first, how child-rearing tradition changes in Tertia over the past twenty years; second, more details about interview and observational methods by two researchers; third, the correctness and extension of Dr. Karp's conclusion.
- College and university education should be free for all students, fully financed by the government. 83
- Humans arrived in the Kaliko Islands about 7,000 years ago, and within 3,000 years most of the large mammal species that had lived in the forests of the Kaliko Islands had become extinct. Yet humans cannot have been a factor in the species' extinctions, b 88
- 53.The following appeared in a health magazine."The citizens of Forsythe have adopted more healthful lifestyles. Their responses to a recent survey show that in their eating habits they conform more closely to government nutritional recommendations t 83
- The following recommendation was made by the president and administrative staff of Grove College, a private institution, to the college's governing committee."Recently, there have been discussions about ending Grove College's century-old tr 72
- The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Balmer Island Gazette."On Balmer Island, where mopeds serve as a popular form of transportation, the population increases to 100,000 during the summer months. To reduce the number of accidents i 89
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/story/gre-argument-essay-topic-21-outline
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 29 15
No. of Words: 559 350
No. of Characters: 3089 1500
No. of Different Words: 274 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.862 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.526 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.337 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 231 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 183 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 139 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 93 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.276 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.581 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.552 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.254 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.422 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.122 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 635, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nces, the conclusion is unsubstantiated. To begin with, the author fails to provi...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... raised by their biological parents. The interview result, in addition, shows...
^^
Line 7, column 444, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...aring is unlikely to get support to the authors argument. Last but not least, we are ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 461, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... to get support to the authors argument. Last but not least, we are not offered i...
^^^
Line 7, column 1045, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d anthropological results respectively. To sum up, as it stands, the authors co...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 31, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ely. To sum up, as it stands, the authors conclusion is drawn by incomplete evide...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, moreover, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, so, still, then, third, thus, well, whereas, while, for example, in addition, in general, talking about, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 28.8173652695 163% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 75.0 55.5748502994 135% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3208.0 2260.96107784 142% => OK
No of words: 554.0 441.139720559 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.79061371841 5.12650576532 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.85151570047 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.60594886736 2.78398813304 130% => OK
Unique words: 284.0 204.123752495 139% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.512635379061 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 958.5 705.55239521 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 83.8600251999 57.8364921388 145% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.571428571 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7857142857 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 5.70786347227 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 17.0 4.67664670659 364% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.275758770468 0.218282227539 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0624106884543 0.0743258471296 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0851479655456 0.0701772020484 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.173780930212 0.128457276422 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.100099770549 0.0628817314937 159% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.3799401198 109% => 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: 16.3 12.5979740519 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 142.0 98.500998004 144% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 12.3882235529 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.