[21] [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.]
The writer of this argument, Dr Karp (DK), made three conclusions: 1) the result of Dr. Field (DF) about Tertian village culture is invalid; 2) the observation-centered approach (OCA) to study island culture is invalid as well; 3) the interview-centered approach (ICA) with a team of graduate students is much accurate for understanding the child-rearing traditions in Tertia as well as other islands. After an in-depth scrutiny, this argument is untenable and full of holes, therefore requiring further evidence to prove the writer's assertions.
First off, the evidence provided is not enough for DK to conclude that DF's finding is invalid. The writer presumes that the results from his study by ICA are convincing and valid for sure. How could he prove that? If the results of his study turn out to be wrong, the whole argument becomes senseless at once. Even if he obtains the correct results, it still cannot prove that DF's findings are invalid. After all, DF's study was conducted 20 years ago, and maybe the traditions of this island have already changed dramatically from the village children-rearing system to a parent-raising one. In this light, in order to prove the invalidity of DF's consequences, the writer should provide further evidence instead of making such an inappropriate comparison between these two studies with a 20-year long distance.
The writer's second assertion that OCA to studying cultures is invalid is lack of basic foundations. After all, whether a method is valid or not cannot be simply judged by the validity of results out of this method. Sometimes, in spite of a perfectly correct method, the results could still be wrong due to the bad performance of the studiers and the poor participation of the respondents. Here is this case: the writer DK tries to convince people OCA is a bad approach to the study of island culture only due to that he believes the results of DF's study via this method is wrong. Such reasoning is not full enough to convince people about the invalidity of OCA, let alone the uncertainty in the validity of the results of DF's study. Therefore, further study should be made for strong proof in detail to test the validity of OCA in study of island civilization.
In the light of the third assertion of the writer--ICA with a team of graduate students is much accurate for understanding the child-rearing traditions in Tertia as well as other islands, fundamental evidence is not provided by the writer. Given the results of DK's approach are valid, it still cannot fully prove whether this IC method is valid or not. Maybe the results come to be correct only by chance, for example, the performance process, like answer collection or data treatment, is performed wrongly but reaches a correct answer. Maybe the graduate students know the real situation therefore they fake the results to match the truth. If these possibilities turn to be true, the ICA could be invalid itself at Tertia. Even if ICA is accurate in Tertia, there is still no guarantee that whether it will sustain in other islands, considering possible mistakes made by the graduate students of immature research skills, the different traditions and potential different reactions to the researchers from the residents of different islands. In the light of all of these factors, the writer really needs to do more research on this issue for a accurate conclusion.
In sum, the writer develops three conclusions with insufficient evidence to support and the problems have been discussed above. In order to reach a sound argument, the writer needs to figure out all the problems above and provide further evidence for them. Otherwise, the assertions will remain untenable.
33min 615作者: ppguo 时间: 2011-11-14 11:53
第一个论点：DK 与 DF 的结论不能简单说对与错。可以说因为方法不同，时代不同，不同的人，所以不具有可比性。20年，村子里可能已经发生了很大的变化。 “ Sometimes, in spite of a perfectly correct method, the results could still be wrong due to the bad performance of the studiers and the poor participation of the respondents." 冷月写的时候是不是比较激动，这个攻击点不是很合适。不能攻击说人家的研究没有好好做，是错的。这一点倒是可以说，观察的方法是很传统的方法，被证明在很多学科都很有效。而且观察的时候，被观察的对象没有被打扰，很放松，可以很好反应出真实的状况。而询问的方法，虽然能直接得到所要的问题的答案，答案是不是反应出最真实的状况要看面试对象的状态。作者: 冷月钟笛 时间: 2011-11-14 22:57
嗯 这里说得太绝对化了，我觉得可以适当缓和语气地表达这层意思，比如指出some flaws or uncertainties within the results~作者: 冷月钟笛 时间: 2011-11-14 22:57
前两天写作的感觉确实有点不在，心里比较着急啊~ 呵呵作者: ppguo 时间: 2011-11-14 23:58
你功夫下到了，就没有什么好怕的了。等你考了高分，也让你开个讲座，呵呵。作者: 冷月钟笛 时间: 2011-11-15 00:56
我还不能够啊~ 回想起来，有些方法用的不对，有些毛病没有克服，现在身上还有很多弱点，考试不失利已经是最好的打算拉~