argument36 【红尘笑沧桑】互改小组 by woshisuper

woshisuperUID: 2737087

TOPIC: ARGUMENT36 - 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 proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is false, and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid. Because they are using the interview-centered method, my team of graduate students working in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures."


Dr. Karp asserted that Dr. Field’s conclusion is wrong and the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid, moreover, he think his team will establish a much more accurate result of the research in Tertia. All these conclusions are based on his interview with children living in the island of Tertia. However, after close scrutiny I disagree with his claims. I find this argument logically unconvincing in several respects.

Firstly, I must point out that the fact that children spend much more time talking about their parents cannot tell us whether the children there are raised by their parents or not. Maybe the children miss their parents so much that they don’t want to let any opportunity pass in which they can talk about their parents. Or maybe the way of Dr. Karp asking questions is misadvise that lead to the result that children talk about more about their parents.

Even if Dr. Field was wrong, Dr. Karp is right. We still cannot conclude that the observation-centered measure is invalid. Because it is just an individual case, and there is no other evidence to illustrate that most researches are wrong by taking advantage of Dr. Field’s measure. Similarly, we cannot deduce that the interview-centered method is accurate let alone more accurate than observation-centered method either.

Finally, assuming that Dr. Karp’s method is right, how could we know whether his team of graduate students working in Tertia can get a more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures? The complexion in other islands is different, and maybe the graduate students are not as excellent as their master, they may not conclude a right result of other islands. Or maybe the conditions of other islands are too complex and difficult for these students to find the correct understanding.

To sum up, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To support his conclusions, Dr. Karp should provide better evidence or modify his arguments. I cannot agree with his views only due to what he mentioned in his claims.

立刻马上UID: 2737860

Dr. Karp asserted that Dr. Field’s conclusion is wrong and the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid, moreover, he think his team will establish a much more accurate result of the research in Tertia. All these conclusions are based on his interview with children living in the island of Tertia. However, after close scrutiny I disagree with his claims. I find this argument logically unconvincing in several respects.

Firstly, I must point out that the fact that children spend much more time talking about their parents cannot tell us whether the children there are raised by their parents or not. Maybe the children miss their parents so much that they don’t want to let any opportunity pass in which they can talk about their parents. Or maybe the way of Dr. Karp asking questions is misadvise(misleading) that lead to（contributes to） the result that children talk about more about their parents.

Even if Dr. Field was(is) wrong and Dr. Karp is right, We still cannot conclude that the observation-centered measure is invalid. Because it is just an individual case, and there is no other evidence to illustrate that most researches are wrong by taking advantage of Dr. Field’s measure. Similarly, we cannot deduce that the interview-centered method is accurate let alone more accurate than observation-centered method either.

Finally, assuming that Dr. Karp’s method is right, how could we know whether his team of graduate students working in Tertia can get a more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures? The complexion in other islands is different, and maybe the graduate students are not as excellent as their master, they may not conclude a right result of other islands. Or maybe the conditions of other islands are too complex and difficult for these students to find the correct understanding.(前面一段的证明是这一段情况的让步，所以两段顺序应该换一下)

To sum up, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To support his conclusions, Dr. Karp should provide better evidence or modify his arguments. I cannot agree with his views only due to what he mentioned in his claims.（最后一句话和第一句重复了，可删）
（这次的论证比上次的要充分，注意一下顺序会更好;结尾最好能够再充实一点）