[问题求助] 第一次argument， 1个小时左右，求点评~ [复制链接]

ajtboy
UID：3748774

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 80
寄托币: 214
注册时间: 2016-9-4
精华: 0
帖子: 5

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2016-10-5 21:23:26 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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

————————————————————————————————————————————————

In this argument, the author argues that Dr. Field’s theory done twenty years ago is not true which suggests children in Tertia were not nurtured by their biological parents, but the whole village. And the author is trying to show us how valid his interview-centered method is through his argument. Although it might seem rational at first glance, it is actually rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, short for some specific evidence to be more strong and valid.

In the first place, the author argues that Dr. Field’s theory is invalid with information collected by his team after twenty years. However, things can change a lot in such a long time. For example, maybe the communication with the outer world through the internet made some nonconformists change their traditions. Therefore, there must be some evidence which prove that the condition in Tertia could remain unchanged for the last twenty years, or the author cannot use today’s condition to negate Dr. Field’s theory because their theories are for different stages of Tertial history and whether one is valid or not exerts little influence on the other.

Also, according to the author’s interviews, children tend to talk more with their biological parents, which means children are not fostered by the entire village and thus Dr. Field’s theory is not valid. However, evidence is needed that there is a definite link between “talk more with” and “be fostered by”, because maybe children are in fact reared by the village but they just like to talk with their parents, whom they feel comfortable with. For example, it is not strange that a boy who is fed by the entire village and sleep with others on the bed offered by the village like to talk with his parents who often play with him and buy him toys but not nurture him. Hence, the author must provide a link between “talk more with” and “be fostered by”, which can make his argument stronger.

Last but not least, even if it is true that the condition remained the same for last twenty years, which means Dr. Field’s theory is not true, and the author can make sure that nowadays children in Tertia are reared by their biological parents, which means the author’s theory is true, it still need some evidence to prove the author’s view. The author need evidence to show that Dr. Field’s researching method and his are both very typical and with extensively influential meanings, or he cannot simply jump to conclusions that his rightness this time means his interview-centered methods can be useful for all situations. Likewise, Dr. Field’s observation-centered method should not be abandoned all the time. Changes are that residents in Tertia are a little weird and thus hard to observe, but they like to talk with others and that is why interview-centered methods make sense. Therefore, the author need more evidence to show his researching method can also be useful for the study of many different places’ culture, where the observation-centered method is still invalid.

To sum up, the author does not offer enough evidence and information to let people believe that Dr. Field’s research is wrong and the author’s own theory is right, which, according to the author, should be proper for many different cases. In reality, the author’s argument still need some extra evidence to make it, including the condition in Tertia could remain unchanged for twenty years, “ talk more with” means “ be reared by” and this case is typical enough to prove that his theory can be extensively applied.