argument 10 求拍

lwx27

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.


In this argument, the author supported Dr. Karp’s claim that Dr. Field’s conclusion about Tertian village culture must be invalid and some anthropologists’ recommendation that future research on the subject should be conducted via the interview-centered method to obtain accurate information on tertian child-rearing practices. Although it appears reasonable at first glance, the argument is fraught with flaws and holes. As discussed below, the argument suffers from several critical flaws and is therefore unpersuasive.

Firstly, the author described Dr. Field’s and Dr. Karp’s conclusion about Tertian village culture respectively. Obviously, their conclusions are different and Dr. Karp claimed that Dr. Field’s conclusion must be invalid. However, is those two anthropologists’ research comparable? In fact, Dr. Field’s research was conducted 20 years ago, while Dr. Karp’s research was conducted recently. Are the conditions of Tertia recently the same as 20 years ago? Since 20 years is quite a long time, is it possible that people in the island of Tertia have changed their way of rearing children during those 20 years? Is it possible that culture communication between Tertia and other islands lead to transformation of Tertian child-rearing practices? Well, there is a good chance that children in Tertia were actually reared by an entire village 20 years ago, while they were reared by their own biological parents when Dr. Karp visited Tertia and did research. In this case, both Dr. Karp’s and Dr. Field’s conclusion are right. In short, without ruling out other possibility explanations for the difference between these two anthropologists’ conclusions, the author cannot safely support Dr. Karp’s claim.

Then in this argument, Dr. Karp visited a group of islands and conducted with children living in this group of islands, not merely the island of Tertia. Well, in the interviews, which specific island those children mostly came from? Were they mostly from the island of Teria? If only a few children interviewed came from Teria, the result of the interviews would lack validity because the sample is biased. Even assuming that those children are mostly from the island of Teria, validity of the interview is still dubious unless the author could provide more details of the interviews. For example, what specific questions are asked in Dr. Karp and other researchers’ interviews with those children? If they asked, for example, how do you think about your parents, the things are totally different. Since no evidence could guarantee the validity of the interviews, the results are obviously unpersuasive.

Finally on the basis of the validity of Dr. Karp’s conclusion, some anthropologist recommended that future research on the subject should be conducted via the interview-centered method, which is adopted by Dr. Karp. Even if Dr. Karp’s conclusion is actually valid, are there any other methods researcher can choose besides observation-centered method, which is adopted by Dr. Field, and interview-centered method? How about, for example, immersion method, in which researchers live with subjects to gather information?

In summarily, the author’s argument and recommendation is unpersuasive due to several critical flaws. To strength the argument, the author must first consider those questions described above and then provide more evidence.

个人觉得这篇ARGU写得比较烂，思路语言都比较受阻，求指导！

lwx27

谢谢版主，可能太关注instruction光顾着提问题了。我倒不觉得直接表明自己的看法比较重要，毕竟是argu不是issue。可能没能explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation导致看着反问太多。
结构上确实没注意，哪里想到的多哪里就写得多，越写到后面越觉得没什么可写。
第三条建议不错，没想到。

1.个人觉得，你的反问多了点，虽然反问有帮助，但你还是要有直接表明自己的的看法的。
2.结构上，第二段比第三、四段长的太多，这样应该不很好。
3.另外你可以补充一点吧，就是，那些小孩更多的提到自己的亲生父母，或许正是因为他们不是自己的亲生父母养大的原因造成的
-- by 会员 竹林中人 (2011/12/13 21:36:34)

竹林中人

1.个人觉得，你的反问多了点，虽然反问有帮助，但你还是要有直接表明自己的的看法的。
2.结构上，第二段比第三、四段长的太多，这样应该不很好。
3.另外你可以补充一点吧，就是，那些小孩更多的提到自己的亲生父母，或许正是因为他们不是自己的亲生父母养大的原因造成的