"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."
The Author of this argument claims that the research done by his team is more significant than the research of Dr. Field in the island of Tertia. The research has the invertible result compared to Dr. Field's work. However, there are plenty of flaws and assumptions in the arguments those seems illogical and fails to convince me.
First of all, the research done by Dr. Field and the author has vast time difference of 20 years. It can be considered as the research took place between altogether different generations. There could be a change of culture and thinking of people of Tertia Island in this period of time and that made the difference between research results. The claim of method of research, made by author can be questioned by the number of children taken in account for research. It can be possible that the Dr. Field's team had researched very few children due to population gap from then and now.
Secondly, it is not clear about the age group of the children who were studied in both the research. One can easily assume that the infants are close to their biological parents and will talk about them more than any other else. It can be considered as the children at Dr. Field's research time were older than author's time.
Finally, the type of questions asked in both the research can be different which made the 2 results. When the author's team interviewed the children, the questions could have been parents centric questions. It is not clearly stated in the argument about the type of questionnaires included in research. It is not clearly stated in the argument about the type of questionnaires, included in research.
In conclusion, the author provided a ambiguous view of both the research work. It needs more data and clarity to decide the superiority and veracious results between both the research work.
- Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear. 16
- People should undertake risky action only after they have carefully considered its consequences. 16
- The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer-generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household. 50
- College students should be encouraged to pursue subjects that interest them rather than the courses that seem most likely to lead to jobs. 58
- Although innovations such as video, computers, and the Internet seem to offer schools improved methods for instructing students, these technologies all too often distract from real learning. 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 272, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...king of people of Tertia Island in this period of time and that made the difference between re...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 36, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... In conclusion, the author provided a ambiguous view of both the research wor...
^
Discourse Markers used:
['finally', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'second', 'secondly', 'then', 'in conclusion', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.269444444444 0.25644967241 105% => OK
Verbs: 0.138888888889 0.15541462614 89% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0527777777778 0.0836205057962 63% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0583333333333 0.0520304965353 112% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0305555555556 0.0272364105082 112% => OK
Prepositions: 0.144444444444 0.125424944231 115% => OK
Participles: 0.0444444444444 0.0416121511921 107% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.782662372 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0138888888889 0.026700313972 52% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.116666666667 0.113004496875 103% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.025 0.0255425247493 98% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00833333333333 0.0127820249294 65% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1868.0 2731.13054187 68% => OK
No of words: 315.0 446.07635468 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.93015873016 6.12365571057 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.57801047555 92% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.326984126984 0.378187486979 86% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.260317460317 0.287650121315 90% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.212698412698 0.208842608468 102% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.12380952381 0.135150697306 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.782662372 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 207.018472906 71% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.469841269841 0.469332199767 100% => OK
Word variations: 46.6268326322 52.1807786196 89% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 20.039408867 85% => OK
Sentence length: 18.5294117647 23.2022227129 80% => OK
Sentence length SD: 20.5737764355 57.7814097925 36% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.882352941 141.986410481 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5294117647 23.2022227129 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.529411764706 0.724660767414 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 44.5611577965 51.9672348444 86% => OK
Elegance: 2.01219512195 1.8405768891 109% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.278891164641 0.441005458295 63% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.175940301312 0.135418324435 130% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.222602508857 0.0829849096947 268% => Ideas in sentences are similar.
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.639916985764 0.58762219726 109% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.130109918521 0.147661913831 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.130033416993 0.193483328276 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0558438434363 0.0970749176394 58% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.468525580457 0.42659136922 110% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0612492147529 0.0774707102158 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.195088103706 0.312017818177 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0671339780888 0.0698173142475 96% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.33743842365 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.82512315271 187% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 1.0 6.46551724138 15% => More positive topic words wanted.
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 6.0 2.82389162562 212% => OK
Total topic words: 12.0 14.657635468 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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: This is not the final score. 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.