argument23 求拍

李小含

argument23

Dr.Karpconcludes that either the conclusion or the approach of DR.FIELD about thechildren in Tertia is invalid according to his interview to the children. The resultof this interview show that children who were interviewed talked more timeabout their biological parents than about other adults. He also points out thatthe interview-centered method that his team is currently using will establish amuch more accurate understanding of child- rearing traditions there and inother island culture. I can’t be convinced with DR.KARP’s argument for severalreasons.
        Firstly:unless the author provides sufficient evidence to show that he interviewedlarge quantities of children and did the interview so randomly across theentire island, the interview result are not reliable to represent situation ofall children in the island. Perhaps children who would like to spend more timetalking about other adults in the village than their biological parents aremuch more than the children accepted interview.
        Secondly:even if the result is reliable, assumption that the result suggests the childrenare reared by their biological parents is necessary before the claim that DR.F’sconclusion is invalid. But it is logically unsounded to claim that the one who achild prefers to talk more about is absolutely the one who rears the child. Perhaps,the child talked more about his biological parents since they are friendlier tothem than others.
        Thirdly:even if the children are really reared by their biological parents, the author’sopposition to DR.F’s conclusion is still unconvinced. Since the conclusion wasmade 20 years ago, the author provides no assurances that present situationkeeps the same as 20 years ago. 20 years is sufficient for the people in theisland to realize that children can be better reared by their biologicalparents.
        Finally:the author assume there to be a close correlation between the validity ofsearching result and the validity of method used in the search. Even if theconclusion of DR.F’s conclusion is invalid, other reasons for his failure couldbe possible. Perhaps DR.F’s observation lasted too short that mislead him. The author’sconfidence in interview-centered method can be doubted similarly. Even if theauthor’s conclusion is accurate, without comparison, such claim that interview-centeredmethod is more accurate than the observant-centered is reasonable.
        Insum, DR.K’s conclusion for his interview is ill conceived and poor supported. Tolend credibility to this conclusion, he should provide evidence to show the representativeof the children he interviewed, and public the contention of his interview toprove that what the information he got from the interview can speculate fosterpeople of these children. Sufficient controlled trials of varied research arenecessary to show the invalid of observant-centered method and the advantage ofinterview-centered method.

李小含

附题目
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.

李小含

求拍不能，只能自顶...

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

李小含

非常感谢%>_<%

lukebrehm

haha, your welcome