The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist.
"Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia show that these children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. This research of mine proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is invalid and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid as well. The interview-centered method that my team of graduate students is currently using in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
This short article written by Dr. Karp, a noted anthropologist, has recommended that the research methodology he is applying in Teria: interview-centered method, is more accurate, and the observation-centered method applied by Dr. Ford, another anthropologist who conducted same research in the same island some 2o years ago, is invalid. He further claims that his method of conducting research will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions in Teria and other island cultures. Clearly, however, the assumption made by Dr. Kerp is utterly fallacious, and the derived conclusion is misleading.
First of all, this short article lacks sufficient information about his research methology. The situation might be , like, Dr. Ford himself observed the detail situations applying his observation-centered tools, and reached the conclusion quite meticulously. In contrast, the graduates employed by Dr. Kerp may have perfunctionally carried out interviews with the children of Teria island. Its not a new thing that recently graduated peoples – who often lacks proper seriousness – try their best to avoid their work, or want to complete it in speed, so that they could perform other things like sightseeing of the island, having new food of the new place etc. Therefore, the situation might in the field might be quite different than Dr. Karp thought – and due to cursory interviews did by fresh graduates, a conclusion highly contradictory to the previous studies (by noteworthy anthropologists) may have arrived. Therefore, Dr. Karp should cross-check the work of his fresh graduates, first, before jumping to the conclusion so hurriedly.
Similarly, Dr. Karp unfairly assumes that the children of Teria island, previously supposed to be grown up by the entire village, talk much about their biological parents, and therefore there is no validity in saying they were reared by the entire village. The situation might be different in Teria as assumed by Dr. Karp. After grown up by ther entire village, the childern might have started to talk about their biological parents by knowing from other folks, or due to the milieu of the society, they might have started to keep concern about their parents. Therefore, Dr. Kerp’s assumption would have been stronger if he had explored these things during the research, and had written explicitly in the article.
Moreover, the most fallacious claim of Dr. Karp is that interview-centered method employed by his research team in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions in other island cultures as well. He forgets to know that the situation of other islands might not be same as that of Teria: different island, and their demography may demand different type of research methodology. For this moment, if we assume his claims are valid, still there is no guarantee that same research methology and the conclusion can be replicated in other islands too.
In sum, Dr. Kerp’s claims and recommendations are not logically sound. Before, I gesture thumbs up for his efforts, Dr. Kerp must supply cogent evidence regarding the truthfulness in work of fresh graduates, well elaborated evidences collected by his team, and details of his research methodology. Incorporating this facts, and logic, the argument made by Dr. Karp would be more robust than it is now in article.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-12 | Devendra Prasad Chalise | 16 | view |
| 2019-07-21 | Marcello | 89 | view |
| 2019-06-28 | kap | 50 | view |
| 2019-06-07 | Gh.Ne | 55 | view |
| 2018-10-22 | avinash2618 | 83 | view |
- Leadership change most after five years. 16
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could. 16
- Nature's Way, a chain of stores selling health food and other health-related products, is opening its next franchise in the town of Plainsville. The store should prove to be very successful: Nature's Way franchises tend to be most profitable in areas wher 70
- Reason: The reputation of anyone who is subjected to media scrutiny will eventually be diminished.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based. 66
- The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist."Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rat 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 115, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...search methology. The situation might be , like, Dr. Ford himself observed the de...
^^
Line 4, column 123, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ethology. The situation might be , like, Dr. Ford himself observed the detail sit...
^^
Line 4, column 392, Rule ID: IT_IS[6]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: It's; It is
...iews with the children of Teria island. Its not a new thing that recently graduated...
^^^
Line 4, column 731, Rule ID: RATHER_THEN[2]
Message: Did you mean 'different 'from''? 'Different than' is often considered colloquial style.
Suggestion: from
...t in the field might be quite different than Dr. Karp thought – and due to cursory i...
^^^^
Line 6, column 172, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...alk much about their biological parents, and therefore there is no validity in sa...
^^
Line 8, column 56, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ost fallacious claim of Dr. Karp is that interview-centered method employed by hi...
^^
Line 8, column 201, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nderstanding of child-rearing traditions in other island cultures as well. He f...
^^
Line 8, column 227, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ing traditions in other island cultures as well. He forgets to know that the si...
^^
Line 10, column 318, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...his research methodology. Incorporating this facts, and logic, the argument made by ...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'regarding', 'similarly', 'so', 'still', 'therefore', 'well', 'in contrast', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.254125412541 0.25644967241 99% => OK
Verbs: 0.141914191419 0.15541462614 91% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0957095709571 0.0836205057962 114% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0660066006601 0.0520304965353 127% => OK
Pronouns: 0.046204620462 0.0272364105082 170% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.120462046205 0.125424944231 96% => OK
Participles: 0.0511551155116 0.0416121511921 123% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.1555336119 2.79052419416 113% => OK
Infinitives: 0.016501650165 0.026700313972 62% => OK
Particles: 0.00660066006601 0.001811407834 364% => OK
Determiners: 0.0759075907591 0.113004496875 67% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.029702970297 0.0255425247493 116% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00660066006601 0.0127820249294 52% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3413.0 2731.13054187 125% => OK
No of words: 536.0 446.07635468 120% => OK
Chars per words: 6.36753731343 6.12365571057 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81161862636 4.57801047555 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.384328358209 0.378187486979 102% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.307835820896 0.287650121315 107% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.238805970149 0.208842608468 114% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.160447761194 0.135150697306 119% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1555336119 2.79052419416 113% => OK
Unique words: 260.0 207.018472906 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485074626866 0.469332199767 103% => OK
Word variations: 57.6709636092 52.1807786196 111% => OK
How many sentences: 19.0 20.039408867 95% => OK
Sentence length: 28.2105263158 23.2022227129 122% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.8027350252 57.7814097925 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 179.631578947 141.986410481 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.2105263158 23.2022227129 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.684210526316 0.724660767414 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 3.58251231527 251% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 58.9941084053 51.9672348444 114% => OK
Elegance: 1.67532467532 1.8405768891 91% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.406784814325 0.441005458295 92% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.104946094332 0.135418324435 77% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0695208961015 0.0829849096947 84% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.56149132194 0.58762219726 96% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.139808542663 0.147661913831 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.167568350762 0.193483328276 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0651148648919 0.0970749176394 67% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.372322431301 0.42659136922 87% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0746929244279 0.0774707102158 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.272653692062 0.312017818177 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0322462092616 0.0698173142475 46% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.33743842365 96% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.82512315271 145% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 6.0 2.82389162562 212% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.