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."
就是这道题。
我想写的顺序是
第一段: Karp的interview-centered的方法并不能很好的去了解一些岛屿的文化和孩子的抚养情况,因为没有证据证明他的方法是对的。再论述还有其他的方法可以了解这些情况。
第二段:与Field相比,不能说Karp的方法一定对而Field的一定错。因为孩子说到生父母的时间多并不代表一定是生父母抚养的。
第三段:想把两个数据上的问题合在一起说:一个就是Karp的调查范围与Field的不一样,另外一个是隔了20年。
不知道这样子安排是否合理,希望能得到大家的指点,谢谢了!
第二个,接下来就是各种论据,我没自细琢磨LZ的意思,不知道你有没留意到,“别人”的观察对象是"Tertia”,他的观察对象是“islands that including Tertia”。我的看法是,即使这两个研究报告结果得出的不同“倾向”是可以对比的,他们的观察对象也不同。
然后最后再抓一个论据,时间是一个不错的点。还有一个点,就是他说到因为他认为别人的结果有问题,就直接同时否认别人的实验方法也是invalid的。这是一个典型的连坐的逻辑错误...翻了一下书,英文名叫Guilt by association.
就第三点来说,我觉得虽然我说的另一个点是并列结论之一,但是处于脱离了前两个攻击点的逻辑领域;而同学所说道的20年虽然是一个条件,但是却可以承接我的前两个攻击点,说明,就算前两个都是可比的,第三个也已经过去20年了。。。怎样怎样。
抱歉这两天好久没上了...
我原来说的那个调查范围不一样就是想说Tertia和Group of island的问题。
我原来一直比较困惑一点,就是像你说的第一点,认为作者的方法是有问题的,这个和后面你说的第三点否认别人的结论同时也否认别人的方法这一点,我总觉得这两点有点分不开,如果分开了感觉写的时候会有点重复,但合在一起又感觉有点太长了。