argument23 求拍

lukebrehm

Dr. Karp concludes that either the conclusion or the approach of Dr. Field about the children in Tertia was wrong according to his interview with the children. The result of this interview shows that the children who were interviewed talked more time about their biological parents than about other adults. He also points out that the interview-centered method that his team is currently using will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures. I can’t be convinced by Dr. Karp's argument for several reasons.
       
Firstly: unless the author provides sufficient evidence to show that he interviewed large quantities of children and did the interview randomly across the entire island, the interview results are not reliable to represent the situation of all children on the island. Perhaps children who prefer to spend more time talking about other adults in the village rather than their biological parents are much more but were not picked for an interview.
       
Secondly: even if the result is reliable the assumption that the result suggests the children are reared by their biological parents is necessary before Dr.Field’s conclusion is invalid. But it is logically unsound to claim that the one who a child prefers to talk more about is absolutely the one who rears the child. Perhaps, the children talked more about his biological parents since they are friendlier to them than others.
       
Thirdly: even if the children are really reared by their biological parents, the author’s opposition to Dr.Fields’s conclusion is still unconvincing. Since the conclusion was made 20 years ago, the author provides no assurances that present situation is the same as 20 years ago. 20 years is sufficient time for the people in the island to realize that children can be better reared by their biological parents.
       
Finally: the author assumes there to be a close correlation between the validity of searching result and the validity of method used in the search. Even if Dr.Field’s conclusion is invalid, other reasons for his failure could be possible. Perhaps Dr.Field’s observation lasted too short, therefore misleading him. The author’s confidence in interview-centered methods can be doubted for similar reasons. Even if the author’s conclusion is accurate, without comparison, such a claim that interview-centered methods are more accurate than the observant-centered is reasonable (--I think you mean unreasonable).
       
In summery, Dr.Karp’s conclusion for his interview is ill conceived and poorly supported. To lend credibility to this conclusion, he should provide evidence to show the representative of the children he interviewed, and public the contention of his interview to prove that what the information he got from the interview can speculate foster people of these children (--VERY HARD SENTENCE TO UNDERSTAND). Sufficient controlled trials of varied research are necessary to show the lacking aspects of observant-centered methods and the advantages of interview-centered methods.

Very Good keep it up

lukebrehm

the words in italic are ones that i revised

lukebrehm

haha, your welcome