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 examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The article claims that Dr. Field’s conclusion about the culture of Terian village is not correct, and accordingly, the author rejects the observation-centered approach for studying cultures. He claims that the interview method is a better approach to study cultures. However, before this recommendation can be properly evaluated, a few questions must be answered.
First of all, does children’s talking about their parents more than other adults mean that they were entirely reared by their parents? Furthermore, we do not know what were the questions in the interview about. Maybe researchers only asked about their parents or their family, and children had to talk mostly about them. If the questions above were true, then the argument is flawed.
Second, does interview with children tell us all about the culture in a region? I mean, culture is a pretty comprehensive word, and when someone wants to study the culture, he or she has to consider many factors, not just what or about whom children mostly talk about. Researchers have to at least talk with each generation in that particular society and study their traditions and many other subjects in order to fully grasp the culture of that village. This question, if not be answered appropriately, then one cannot rely on the proposed conclusion.
Finally, if one result of an approach is proved to be invalid, can we refute the method in general? For example, let us assume that the conclusion presented by Dr. Karp was correct. He/She can not readily repudiate the whole observation-centered approach used by Dr. Field. Maybe Dr. Field did not accurately employ this approach, or even maybe this particular approach has some limitations. In any case, one cannot easily debunk the whole idea. If the author fails to provide more evidence about the faults of the observation-centered approach, his or her conclusion is not totally correct.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to answer the questions stated above(perhaps refer to other studies of his/her or other scientists), then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-01 | Sophy@ | 66 | view |
| 2023-09-01 | Sophy@ | 58 | view |
| 2023-08-23 | dhruv7315 | 77 | view |
| 2023-08-19 | Mayuresh08 | 64 | view |
| 2023-08-18 | Dinesh4518 | 85 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Young people today have no influence on the important decisions that determine the future of society as a whole Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statements Because people are busy doing so many different things they do very few things well Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 70
- Tpo 38In 1995 a microscopic fungus called Phytophthora ramorum or P ramorum was first detected in the forests of the western United States P ramorum infects trees and causes particularly serious damage in oak trees in many infected oaks leaves with 70
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In 58
- TPO 55 Writing 1Because of climate change more and more land that was once used to grow crops or provide food for animals is turning to dry unusable desert land There are many proposals about how to stop this process known as desertification A number 80
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 363 350
No. of Characters: 1819 1500
No. of Different Words: 187 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.365 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.011 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.974 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 130 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 97 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 67 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.105 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.433 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.789 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.306 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.306 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.172 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, so, then, as to, at least, for example, i mean, in conclusion, in general, talking about, first of all, in any case
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1879.0 2260.96107784 83% => OK
No of words: 361.0 441.139720559 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20498614958 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35889894354 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09617480897 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.540166204986 0.468620217663 115% => OK
syllable_count: 578.7 705.55239521 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.0848308487 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.8947368421 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.63157894737 5.70786347227 169% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.67664670659 257% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.109353221592 0.218282227539 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0341882803631 0.0743258471296 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0351843501741 0.0701772020484 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0559871460177 0.128457276422 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0396403254495 0.0628817314937 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.