我的第一篇A，求哥哥姐姐猛拍，不胜感激。

yvongUID: 2767596

ARGUMENT 36
36. 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." m2 K0 ?5 g'


36.

In this argument, the arguer concludes that Dr. Field’s conclusion is false and the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid. To support this conclusion, the arguer point out that his recent interviews whit children living in the group of island show that child talk more about their biological parents than other adults. Although this argument might at first glance to be reasonable, a close scrutiny reveals that it is unconvincing for several fallacies.

In the first place, the arguer claims that children are reared by their biological parents for the reason that children spend much more time talking about their parents. This assertion is actually unreasonable because the arguer unfairly assumes that those who children talk much more about are children’s closest people and also assumes that children are reared by these people. Yet the argument is fails to substantiate these assumptions. It is entirely possible that a child spend much more time staying in their parents and another people in the island just make a meal per day for the child. Although the child has a closer relationship whit his parents, he is reared by both his parents and that person. Without proving these assumptions, the arguer’s conclusion is indefensible.

In the second place, even if the claim that children are reared by their parents is right, the author’s allege that Dr. Field’s conclusion twenty years ago is false is actually unjustified. It is most like that many background condition such as custom and population have changed over this time span. Perhaps the island of Tertia has experienced a large growth in population that today every family has 2 to 4 children, a doubled number than 20 years ago, to take care. As a result, families previous reared other’s children nowadays faced many problems that they are unwilling and have no enough money and time to rear other’s children. Since the author fails to consider and rule out these, I find the author’s claim that Dr. Field’s conclusion is false is weakened.

In the third place, even if Dr. Field’s conclusion was false, this single sample is insufficient to draw any general conclusion about observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid. In order to draw this conclusion, the author infers that in a research, the method is wrong if the result is wrong. It is absolutely unwarranted because the result of a research is influenced by many factors.

To sum up, the conclusion lack credibility and without confirming these assumptions above, I cannot accept the author’s conclusion.
t3 l$ _" |: