- UID
- 703448
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-12-20
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
Argument 10 题目：
Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia. Using an observation-centered approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. Recently another anthropologist, Dr. Karp, visited the group of islands that includes Tertia and used the interview-centered method to study child-rearing practices. In the interviews that Dr. Karp conducted with children living in this group of islands, the children spent much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. Dr. Karp decided that Dr. Field’s conclusion about Tertian village culture must be invalid. Some anthropologists recommend that to obtain accurate information on Tertian child-rearing practices, future research on the subject should be conducted via the interview-centered method.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
=======================================================================================
字数：490
=======================================================================================
In this article, Dr. Karpasserts that Dr. Field's investigation twenty years ago has many flaws and hisnew way of survey is useful and can be used in many other situations. Heprovides evidence that the results of the two investigations are different andthen his achieves his conclusion. Dr. Karp's conclusion and reasoning processseems good, however, many flaws are also in his argument, which can weaken hisargument.
In the first place, Dr. Karp asserts that Dr.Field's visiting to Tertia is one thing happened twenty years ago, while hisown investigation was made recently. We can hardly believe in thisdemonstration because the author didn't provide evidence indicating that thelocal situations in Tertia haven't been changed during the two decades. Thereis a big chance that twenty years ago, most of the children in Tertia werereared by the entire village. But as the development of the society and theglobalization trend move toward Tertia, ethos there can be changed and therearing method can be transformed into a biological parent-rearing method. Tomake the argument more convincing and persuasive, Dr. Karp has to provide moreevidence about the stability of Tertia during the specific twenty years andtherefore his reasoning process can be proved more warranted.
In addition, the author also claims that there arehe found that children spend much more time talking about their biologicalparents than about other adults in Tertia. We cannot conclude from thisevidence for just talking more about their biological parents doesn't makesense. This may also happen when they are reared by the entire village, andtheir biological parents may just influence more on their children than otheradults. If this happens, Dr. Karp's inferential process is definitely weakened.Unless he tells us that the children in Tertia are truly reared by their ownparents or provide a more complete and convincing reasoning process, theconclusion cannot be reached.
Finally, granted that the two faults I referredabove are solve by Dr. Karp, his assertion that his interview-centered methodis useful and it can be used in other island cultures seem tenuous. There is abig probability that his method doesn't reflect the true condition of Tertia.And also, his method may be not useful in other cultures for their differentbackgrounds. For instance, people in some other islands may be not as frank aspeople in Tertia, which means those people are likely not to express the truth.To make the argument less unconvincing, Dr. Karp has to provide evidenceshowing that his interview-centered method has no disadvantages and it can be acure-all in any situation.
To sum up, Dr. Karp's demonstration is seeminglygood. But when some specific situations are considered, the argument seems notconvincing. Many things he compares to each other are incomparable. Only byproviding more evidence to make up for those flaws can his conclusion beconvincing and persuasive. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-5-19 15:21:23
收藏
收藏
楼主
