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.”
Argument21 In this argument, the author concludes that the observation-centered approach to studying culture is valid and the interview-centered method is a better and more accurate approach and will be useful in researching other island cultures. At first glance, this argument appears to be somewhat reasonable, actually, further reflection informs me that it has a myriad of assumptions and holes. First and foremost, the author presumptuously relies his conclusion on the rosy prediction that all the things will remain unchanged for a extended period of time. What DR. Field have this observation is a twenty years ago thing, it is highly possible that lot of changes may happen, that makes the rearing-style change in this twenty years period, the author can not conclude that the observation-centered method is valid since he fails to rule out some possible changes in this period. In addition, the author presumptuously assume that all he interviewed told the truth, it is possible most of the interview told a lie and it is also likely that what the author interview is a misleading issue which makes what he interview is not reliability. The author also unfairly tells the interviewer size which may be far from enough, thereby can hardly representative for the entire island. Moreover, we can also cast serious doubt on the assumption that the interview-centered method will be perfectly applied to other islands. It is perhaps that there are huge differences between the Tertia Island and the other island, which renders the distinctions enormously surpass the similarities between this island and other islands and therefore the interview-centered method can not apply in other islands. In conclusion, this argument actually has several flaws as discussed above, to make this argument more convincing, the author would have to take account every possible consideration into account and provide more information to evaluate his claim. 作者: 普渡哥 时间: 2011-12-2 01:31
这有多少字啊？我觉得应该有一些展开。写得有点过于简单了。作者: gemyang 时间: 2011-12-2 11:10
不是说300到350就够了吗？他们都是字不需要太多呀？我很困惑，写那么多又写不完，怎么办？作者: 普渡哥 时间: 2011-12-2 12:03
我觉得不是字数，主要的论据，适当地展开，让读者更能被convinced.