[a习作temp] Argument10-第一篇-还有11天考试-求轻拍！ [复制链接]

flyby
UID：3202403

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 50
寄托币: 192
注册时间: 2011-11-10
精华: 0
帖子: 38

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2015-5-12 12:26:03 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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.

正文：
According to Dr. Karp, children in Tertia are actually reared by their biological parents which contradicts with Dr. Field's conclusion. To support his claim, Dr. Karp points out that the children in Tertia spent much more time communicating with their biological parents than with other adults in the village. Moreover, some anthropologists also suggest that future work to study the Tertia's child-rearing practices should focus more interview-based method, as an implication of Dr. Karp's conclusion. This claim might seem logical at first glance, it is in fact ill-conceived. The reasons are stated as follows.

In the first place, Dr. Karp assumes that Dr. Field's conclusion must be invalid because it does not satisfy the experimental result of his interview-centered method. Nevertheless, it might not be necessarily the case. We should notice that it was twenty years ago that Dr. Field visited the island of Tertia and conducted his research while Dr. Karp started his study recently. It is likely that the child-rearing culture of Tertia has changed greatly during the last twenty years. Perhaps there were a lot of immigrants moving to the island, most of which had the custom of raising children by their own. In that matter, the child-rearing practice of the Tertia might change from raising by the entire village to rearing only by biological parents. Without accounting for and ruling out these facts that would have influenced the culture of Tertia over the last two decades, we should not hastily come to the conclusion that the Dr. Field's claim is incorrect.

In the second place, Dr. Karp reached his conclusion because of his interview with children living in that group of islands which includes island of Tertia. However, the study of the whole group of islands would lend credible support for the argument only if the children of Tertia island also stypify the children on other islands. Through the memo, Dr. Karp neither provided any concrete statistics about the interview results of the children on the Tertia and also provided, nor provided any numbers such as how many of the children taking the interview were from Tertia. We even have reasons to doubt that whether Dr. Karp have conducted interview on any of the children from Tertia. Before more exact statistics are provided, the author cannot bolster the conclusion.

Last but not the least, granted the fore-presented assumptions are correct, we still have questions about whether the interview-based method should be focused in the future research. In order to fully evaluate this claim, one would require more examples of interview-centered and observation-centered studies and compare the different efficiency of them. As many other disciplines, it is more likely that a hybrid method combining both these two methods would lead to a more comprehensive result. Moreover, as the interview-centered method might take a longer time compared with the observation-method, it is also possible that the former one is much more practical in reality.

In conclusion, the argument is not a persuasive one. To convince an analytical reader, the author should rule out the possibility that children-rearing culture of Tertia have not changed during the past twenty years. Besides, more concrete statistics should be provided to show the exact communication situations about the children living on the island of Tertia.

[a习作temp] Argument10-第一篇-还有11天考试-求轻拍！ [复制链接]

相关帖子

US-applicant

寄托兑换店纪念章

19周年勋章

站长推荐