Argument 21~ Dr. Field 与Dr.karp的乱斗

zyq645 · 发表于 2012-11-13 10:45:38

argument 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.

1.作者没有提供证据证明孩子们较多谈论父母是因为他们被父母抚养的。-K的结论不一定是对的
2. F的结论是20年前的。-F的结论不一定是错的
3.结论有问题是因为方法有问题-K对F错，不一定是methodology的问题

Dr. Karp announced the failure of Dr. Field's observation conclusion about Tertian and consequently propose that interview-oriented approach is more applicable than observation-oriented approach to researching child-rearing traditions, by citing his own interview results conducted recently. Although seemingly plausible, the evidence presented is far from suffice to substantiate the author's assertion, which demands more persuasive and detailed information.

Firstly, Dr.Karp failed to provide reasonable evidence to elaborate that more conversations regarding biological parents, which is merely a superficial phenomenon, is attributable to not raising by other adults. After all, the consanguinity between parents and children is not destructible. Considering the limited scale of entire village, it is highly possible that children in Tertian still possess adequate opportunities to communicate and breed intimate and harmonious relationship with their parents in biology , even if brought up by others in Tertian. Therefore, it is understandable that the interview contents were concentrated on their biological parents. To strengthen this argument, the researchers are supposed to obtain direct information to justify that the children in Tertian are not fostered by other villagers. For instance, they could render denotative clues, such as the person who are responsible for their quotidian meals.

Additionally, the statement is relatively fragile because no evidence circumstantiates that the child-rearing tradition has never changed. There has been 20 years, which could witness enormous alterations in prevailing customs, the social structure, demographical condition, the development of economic, since Dr. Karp executed research in Tertian. Possibly, due to the influence of acculturation, the current Tertian populace believe that raising children by biological parents is the optimal choice. Hence, the conclusion of Dr. Karp now and Dr.Field in 20 years ago are both reliable and rational. Other professional opinions are conducive to testify whether the environment in Tertian distincts from that of two decades ago or not.

Eventually, the author grounded conclusion on the assumption that the inappropriate approach, which is observation-centered, contributed to existing bias in Dr. Field's research, which inevitably requires further proof. Otherwise, the statement is doomed to be undermined. Based on available indications, we cannot slapdash exclude the possibility that it is the operational mistakes during observation jeopardizes the validity. For instance, the research probably erroneously interfered the process of nurturing the next generation, such as introducing new morality standards, which morally compel the village cooperate to rear children. Thus, interview approach is not inherently more preferable than observation approach. Other researchers, who engaged in child-rearing tradition in other islands, are merely obliged to eschew the same mistakes, which the precursor made, instead of selecting alternative method. Evidence that indicates the irreversible flaws in observation is necessary.

Conclusively, the statement is problematic in lacking sufficient evidence to establish the causality. To consolidate this argument, the author had better supplement the crucial and meticulous information regarding Dr. Karp's and Dr. Field's research in Tertian to study convention on child-rearing and absorb ponderable experience.

普渡哥 · 发表于 2012-11-15 11:09:01

这篇写得很好，有3.5+吧。

竹林中人 · 发表于 2012-11-15 15:04:45

Dr. Karp announced the failure of Dr. Field's observationconclusion about Tertian and consequently proposes that interview-orientedapproach is more applicable than observation-oriented approach to researchingchild-rearing traditions, by citing his own interview results conducted recently. Although seemingly plausible, the evidence presented is far from sufficed tosubstantiate the author's assertion, which demands more persuasive and detailedinformation.

Firstly, Dr. Karp failedto provide reasonable evidence to elaborate thatmore conversations regarding biological parents, which is merely a superficialphenomenon, is attributable to not raising by other adults. After all, theconsanguinity between parents and children is not destructible. Considering thelimited scale of entire village, it is highly possible that children in Tertianstill possess adequate opportunities to communicate and breed intimate andharmonious relationship with their parents in biology, even if brought up byothers in Tertian. Therefore, it is understandable that the interview contentswere concentrated on their biological parents. Tostrengthen this argument, the researchers are supposed to obtain directinformation to justify that the children in Tertian are not fostered by othervillagers. For instance, they could render denotative clues, such as the personwho are responsible for their quotidian meals.按照我个人的建议，我觉得蓝色部分最好放在前面，就是说为了使得题目的假设或者结论成立，还需要提供什么样的证据，然后再说因为题目没有这些，而会有什么样的其他的可能性和解释。以下类此

Additionally, the statement is relativelyfragile because no evidence circumstantiates that the child-rearing traditionhas never changed. There has been 20 years, which could witness enormousalterations in prevailing customs, the social structure, demographicalcondition, the development of economic, since Dr. Karp executed research inTertian. Possibly, due to the influence of acculturation, the current Tertian populacebelieves that raising children by biological parents is the optimal choice.Hence, the conclusions of Dr. Karp now and Dr.Field in 20 years ago are bothreliable and rational. Other professional opinions are conducive to testifywhether the environment in Tertian distinct from that of two decades ago or not.

Eventually, the author’s grounded conclusion onthe assumption that the inappropriate approach, which is observation-centered,contributed to existing bias in Dr. Field's research, which inevitably requiresfurther proof. Otherwise, the statement is doomed to be undermined. Based onavailable indications, we cannot slapdash exclude the possibility that it isthe operational mistakes during observation jeopardizes the validity. Forinstance, the research probably erroneously interfer the process of nurturingthe next generation, such as introducing new morality standards, which morallycompel the village cooperate to rear children. Thus, interview approach is notinherently more preferable than observation approach. Other researchers, whoengaged in child-rearing tradition in other islands, are merely obliged toeschew the same mistakes, which the precursor made, instead of selectingalternative method. Evidence that indicates the irreversible flaws inobservation is necessary.

Conclusively, the statement is problematic inlacking sufficient evidence to establish the causality. To consolidate thisargument, the author had better supplement the crucial and meticulousinformation regarding Dr. Karp's and Dr. Field's research in Tertian to studyconvention on child-rearing and absorb ponderable experience.

zyq645 · 发表于 2012-12-3 13:04:41

谢谢= =文科专业AW必须整高点才好申请。。。哎

zyq645 · 发表于 2012-12-3 13:05:47

Dr. Karp announced the failure of Dr. Field's observationconclusion about Tertian and consequently proposes that interview-orientedapproach is more applicable than observation-oriented approach to researchingchild-rearing traditions, by citing his own interview results conducted recently. Although seemingly plausible, the evidence presented is far from sufficed tosubstantiate the author's assertion, which demands more persuasive and detailedinformation.

Firstly, Dr. Karp failedto provide reasonable evidence to elaborate thatmore conversations regarding biological parents, which is merely a superficialphenomenon, is attributable to not raising by other adults. After all, theconsanguinity between parents and children is not destructible. Considering thelimited scale of entire village, it is highly possible that children in Tertianstill possess adequate opportunities to communicate and breed intimate andharmonious relationship with their parents in biology, even if brought up byothers in Tertian. Therefore, it is understandable that the interview contentswere concentrated on their biological parents. Tostrengthen this argument, the researchers are supposed to obtain directinformation to justify that the children in Tertian are not fostered by othervillagers. For instance, they could render denotative clues, such as the personwho are responsible for their quotidian meals.按照我个人的建议，我觉得蓝色部分最好放在前面，就是说为了使得题目的假设或者结论成立，还需要提供什么样的证据，然后再说因为题目没有这些，而会有什么样的其他的可能性和解释。以下类此

Additionally, the statement is relativelyfragile because no evidence circumstantiates that the child-rearing traditionhas never changed. There has been 20 years, which could witness enormousalterations in prevailing customs, the social structure, demographicalcondition, the development of economic, since Dr. Karp executed research inTertian. Possibly, due to the influence of acculturation, the current Tertian populacebelieves that raising children by biological parents is the optimal choice.Hence, the conclusions of Dr. Karp now and Dr.Field in 20 years ago are bothreliable and rational. Other professional opinions are conducive to testifywhether the environment in Tertian distinct from that of two decades ago or not.

Eventually, the author’s grounded conclusion onthe assumption that the inappropriate approach, which is observation-centered,contributed to existing bias in Dr. Field's research, which inevitably requiresfurther proof. Otherwise, the statement is doomed to be undermined. Based onavailable indications, we cannot slapdash exclude the possibility that it isthe operational mistakes during observation jeopardizes the validity. Forinstance, the research probably erroneously interfer the process of nurturingthe next generation, such as introducing new morality standards, which morallycompel the village cooperate to rear children. Thus, interview approach is notinherently more preferable than observation approach. Other researchers, whoengaged in child-rearing tradition in other islands, are merely obliged toeschew the same mistakes, which the precursor made, instead of selectingalternative method. Evidence that indicates the irreversible flaws inobservation is necessary.

Conclusively, the statement is problematic inlacking sufficient evidence to establish the causality. To consolidate thisargument, the author had better supplement the crucial and meticulousinformation regarding Dr. Karp's and Dr. Field's research in Tertian to studyconvention on child-rearing and absorb ponderable experience.

-- by 会员竹林中人 (2012/11/15 15:04:45)

哦哦！~就是要先针对题目要求指出要什么证据，然后再去论证他必要性咯~谢谢

[作文互改] Argument 21~ Dr. Field 与Dr.karp的乱斗

所属分类: GRE考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()