argument36求拍

iwvUID: 2759912

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."




In this argument, the arguer recommends that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is false and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the facts that his team of graduate students working in Tertia will establish understanding of child-rearing traditions, which is assumpted as a much more accurate understanding. This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

The argument is based on a hasty generalization. According to the cited facts, we can get no evidence that whom the children are reared by. In the absence of detail statistics or examples, it is impossible to tell the result.

Another unwarranted assumption is that the result is concluded from the fact that children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. It can only indicate that children contact more with their parents than with other people in the village because of the natural relationship between parents and child. Parents would care more about their child. But the arguer fails to rule out the possibilities that children are reared by the whole village. In addition, the arguer has not tell us whether he takes measures to ensure the accurate of the interview, or whether they talk about the topic about their parents, which can misleading children, though the interview.

Even though the old conclusion is false, we cannot draw the conclusion that the means taken by Dr. Field is also not accurate. Whether the means is accurate or not, there are significant factors should be taken into consideration, For example, the ability of the researcher, the co-work of the villagers and so on. What's more, the opinion of Dr. Field is concluded twenty years ago, anyone can not rule out the possibility that the culture has changed these years, and as a result, the assumption is open to doubt.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to research the culture of the village, not generalizes hasty without providing more evidence.

nieyongUID: 2742661

本人argue还在初级阶段  一点浅见
In this argument, the arguer recommends that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is false and thus that（that删掉） the observation-centered approach to claim, the arguer provides the facts that his team of graduate students working in Tertia studying cultures is invalid. To justify this will establish understanding of child-rearing traditions, which is assumpted as a much more accurate understanding. This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

The argument is based on a hasty generalization. According to the cited facts, we can get no evidence that whom the children are reared by. In the absence of detail statistics or examples, it is impossible to tell the result.

Another unwarranted assumption is that the result is concluded from the fact that children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. It can only indicate that children contact more with their parents than with other people in the village (perhaps)because of the natural relationship between parents and child. Parents would care more about their child. But the arguer fails to rule out the possibilities that children are reared by the whole village. In addition, the arguer has not tell us whether he takes measures to ensure the accurate of the interview, or whether they talk about the topic about their parents, which can misleading children, though the interview.（这段应该和第一段在一起，因为是arguer用自己的观察结果来否定Dr. F，这该段正是攻击Dr. K的证据不足）

Even though the old conclusion is false, we cannot draw the conclusion that the means taken by Dr. Field is also not accurate. Whether the means is accurate or not, there are significant factors should be taken into consideration, For example, the ability of the researcher, the co-work of the villagers and so on. What's more, the opinion of Dr. Field is concluded twenty years ago, anyone can not rule out the possibility that the culture has changed these years, and as a result, the assumption is open to doubt.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to research the culture of the village, not generalizes hasty without providing more evidence.(such as.......结尾最好在加强一下，总结一下前文）

攻击的逻辑错误点少了点，语言可以更多模仿下范文，使文章更流畅些

iwvUID: 2759912

第一次修改，欢迎再拍，谢谢:)

In this argument, the arguer recommends that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is false and the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence to prove his approach is better, and the facts that his team of graduate students working in Tertia will establish understanding of child-rearing traditions, which is supposed as a much more accurate understanding. Careful examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the claim of the arguer.

The argument is based on a hasty generalization. According to the cited facts, we can get no evidence whom the children are reared by. In the absence of detail statistics or examples, it is impossible to tell the result. The assumption that the result is concluded from the fact that children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village is also unwarranted. It can only indicate that children contact more with their parents than with other people in the village perhaps because of the natural relationship between parents and child. Parents would care more about their children. But the arguer fails to rule out the possibilities that children are reared by the whole village. In addition, the arguer has not tell us whether he takes measures to ensure the accurateness of the interview, or whether they talk about the topic about their parents, which can misleading children, though the interview.

Even though the old conclusion is false, we cannot draw the conclusion that the means taken by Dr. Field is also not accurate. The team of graduate students working in Tertia and the interview-centered approach seem to lend support to the conclusion. However, is it considered comprehensive in this way? Deciding whether the means is accurate or not, we should take a lot of significant factors into consideration, for example, the ability of the researcher, the co-work of the villagers and so on. What's more, the opinion of Dr. Field is concluded twenty years ago, anyone can not rule out the possibility that the culture has changed in these years, as a result, the assumption is open to doubt.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to research the culture of the village, ensuring that it has not changed, and to substantiate his means of research avoiding defects, not generalizes hasty without providing more evidence.

pomotoUID: 2797324

为啥都说是Dr. Field? 题目里面明明是Dr. Karp...
这道题有一个很明显的错误不知道大家看出来没，我也是看了半天才发觉：
作者的研究对象是包括T岛在内的许多岛上儿童，而Dr K的研究结论只是针对T岛儿童的。
这是严重的偷换主题逻辑错误。