亲，谢谢。。 Argument 10- 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 Tertianchild-rearing practices, future research on the subject should be conducted via the interview-centered method.
Grounding the survey conducted in the island using an interview-centered method, and then comparing with the the method and conclusion of the survey conducted by Dr.Field twenty years ago, the author accordingly suggests that the Dr.field'S studying based on an observation-centered is must be invalid and his own method
should be spread to other research on the same subject. Admittedly,it seems reasonable with a cursory glance ,however,with close examination/scrutiny ,flaws,holes and unproved or ungrounded assumptions are pervasive in the argument,and thus,in order to fully evaluate the article ,a lot of questions need to be answered.
Firstly,the reliability of the survey may be doubted,and several questions must be raised.How about the size of the sample?Does all the children obey a certain kind of rearing pattern?or some other part of the them do not conform with the it . For example, the parents of a small part of the children in the island worry about the security and healthy risk of such a pattern,and even some kind of accidents may happened in the past which lead to the injury or death of children.So these children would
probably
be rear by their own biological parents rather than the whole village.Accordingly,in order to attest the validation of the survey,the author should enlarge the size of sample to attain a more complete result.
Another question that may conducive to evaluate the argument concerning about the possible variation of the rearing pattern.Did any change take place in the past 20 years?Perhaps,20 years ago , the children were absolutely reared by their parents, however, during the 20 years,the pattern were finally proved to be bootless and even harmful,for example,the children reared by the whole village suffer
a deficiency in character due to be vulnerable to the village vice in their younger years without the parents' and villagers' guidance ; lacking in the guidance ,for the parents,it is due to the restriction from reality of the pattern and avoiding of excessive interference intentionally, and for the villager,because they are not the biological parents and thus bear little responsibility for the children, then finally the children are free to the society lacking
in protection both in physical and mental aspects.Accordingly,the village committee abolished the pattern with the purpose of healthy growth for children .In this case,D.Karp's conclusion about the Dr. Field's invalidation may surely be undermined.
One more question may be answer in order to better evaluate the argument.That is,how the author define the rearing pattern?Does it mean the extent how close the children to their parents? However, a pattern can not prevent the children from showing love to their parents.It probably the children is reared by the villager , yet they so miss their biological parents that show a more close attitude and feeling to their parents that present in the survey. In order to support the article,the author need survey in a more large scope involved in village committee , villagers and the parents , then determine the reality of the pattern.
Though the argument seems logical in a rough angle,the author need more evidence and details to answer the questions above,such as the alternative pattern in the island,any change in the past 20 years and the relationship between rearing pattern and the affinity.In this case may the argument became more cogent and compelling. 作者: kinny10 时间: 2012-3-19 18:00:32
up作者: kinny10 时间: 2012-3-19 18:04:03
down作者: 画上眉儿2013 时间: 2013-9-19 22:19:39
By comparing the method and conclusion of the survey conducted by Dr. Field twenty years ago with that by Dr. Karp, the author suggests that Dr. Field's study based on an observation-centered must be invalid and Dr. Karp’s method should be spread to other researches on the same subject. It seems reasonable with a cursory glance, however, with close examination / scrutiny, there are some flaws, holes and unproved or ungrounded assumptions in the argument, and thus, in order to fully evaluate the article, a lot of questions need to be answered.