argu 10.一团乱的思路。

starrr91

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.



The argument is well-presented at a cursory glance, after a trial of reasoning, however, it is not that valid based on the evidence it gives. It lays a recommendation that future research on the subject should be conducted via the interview-centered method, there are two studies conducted by two different methods, that is, the observation-centered and interview-centered. As it mentioned in the argument, the result of the latter study is different from the former, so it says that the latter is superior to the former.Nevertheless, this recommendation is definitely impractical due to several flaws after a close scrutiny.

To start with, I cannot help but to ask a question, that is, is the culture of Tertia has not changed during the last 20 years? Admittedly, the most apparent deficiency in this argument is that the author fails to inform us if something has changed in 20 years that the culture in Tertia is totally different when Dr. Karp conducts a research in this place. So that the conclusion of the two studies divers a lot is reasonable, and this scenario makes the author’s recommendation that the latter method can lead to a more convincible result invalid. Without ruling out or get in the grip of this problem, under no circumstances can the author conclude that it’s the method that decisive in the two studies.

Secondly, even if the problem cast above would turn out to be supported by some ensuing evidence, a critical problem still remains that the author assumes that, which is definitely unwarranted, that it is the children isn’t reared by the whole village that correct. But the author doesn’t offer us any precise evidence to prove this perception, he merely make conclusion based on the unfinished study, what’s more, no proof is listed that the interview-centered method is more accurate in this issue or whether they take some measures to ensure the impartiality of the study, the reliability may be weaken by the interviewers’ own sensibility, they might imply or lure the children to talk about their parents. Pursuing this line of reasoning, it proves to be the author's responsibility to show us more cogent evidence so as to pave the way for a more tenable argument.

What’s more, another question I want to ask that does it, the children talk more about their biological parents, surely elucidate that the children is not reared by the whole village? Apparently, it’s not valid. This situation can only prove that the children have more contact with their biological parents, such as biological parents are more care about their child than the villagers, or because of the blood relationship. Nevertheless, the situation cannot be excluded that it is the whole village that raise the children, such as the food providing or the learning course. So if this question cannot be solve by some convincible evidence, the author cannot say that the two studies actually have different conclusions.

In a nutshell, even though those questions mentioned above turn out to be worked out by some new evidence, this argument still maintains unpersuasive, a flaw, which can also exist, that even if the result of Dr. Field’s study is untenable, it is irrational to deny his research method. Because the reliability of the study is not merely based on the method, many other factor could also influence the conclusion, such as the abilities of the researchers and the comprehensive consideration of this region, not only its tradition but the real life of the people here.

In retrospect, pursuing this line of reasoning, it seems precipitous for the author to jump to the conclusion based on a series of problematic premise. A more thorough study of traditional customers and the real life nowadays should be conducted, or the author cannot jump to the conclusion based on a series of problematic premise and think that Dr. Field’s method of the study is untenable. To make this recommendation more plausible, the author should come to grips with the questions mentioned above. Only by enriching the evidence of bolstering the argument could the author put a convincible recommendation.

普渡哥

发到作文专区啊：）
http://forum.chasedream.com/GRE_AW/list-1.html