argument36 欢迎拍文！！！

Ocean~SprayUID: 2847693

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."
WORDS: 403
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-7-25 11:22:16

The article concludes that Dr.Field's conclusion concerning Tertian village culture is false and the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid. To support this conclusion, the author mentions the comparison between his own research and Dr.Field's. However, careful examination reveals several logical flaws with this argument.

The first mistake involves the invalid assumption that the recent survey carried out among the children living in the group of islands include Tertia is representative of the true condition of Tertia. A myriad of factors may contribute to the result, such factors include that children living in other islands apart from Tertia are usually reared by their own biological parents instead of the entire village so they talk about them often; or perhaps that even though raised by the whole village, they are more concerned with their parents. The author fails to eliminate other possibilities so he fails to convince us.

In addition, even if the children are not raised up by the entire village, there is no solid foundation that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid. It is entirely possible that in this circumstance, the observation fails to provide facts about the living conditions of the children; whereas in other researches the observations are more suitable and effective. Or perhaps Dr.Field also adopted other approaches to draw the conclusion so it is other methods to be blame rather than the observation-centered method. Without ruling out such alternative explanations the conclusion that the observation-centered method is invalid proves unwarranted as it stands.

Finally, the author asserts that the interview-centered method his team of graduate students working in the Tertia Island is now adopted will establish a far more accurate understand of the traditions. Yet the author fails to point out why the noted anthropologist Dr.Field chose other method rather than the interview-centered method. What if there are barriers for the graduates when communicating with local children? It is the author who conducted an interview before and it is likely that Dr.Field and the author’s graduates find it a problem to communicate with locals.

To sum up, to make the argument further persuasive the author has to provide evidence that the Tertia’s children are on earth reared by an entire village; moreover, he should also prove that the observation-centered method is invalid when doing cultural research. To better evaluate the argument, I need to know that the graduates will achieve success with the interview-oriented approach.

fchenyanUID: 2804020

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."
WORDS: 403
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-7-25 11:22:16
The article concludes that Dr.Field's conclusion concerning Tertian village culture is false and the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid.（这个貌似不是article的结论，你仔细看看，这个很关键的，在机考的时候只是这一点就会严重影响你的成绩）
To support this conclusion, the author mentions the comparison between his own research and Dr.Field's. However, careful examination reveals several logical flaws with this argument.（最后一句也不好）
The first mistake involves the invalid assumption that the recent survey carried out among the children living in the group of islands include Tertia is representative of the true condition of Tertia（个人认为这一点有点牵强）. A myriad of factors may contribute to the result, such factors include that children living in other islands apart from Tertia are usually reared by their own biological parents instead of the entire village so they talk about them often; or perhaps that even though raised by the whole village, they are more concerned with their parents. The author fails to eliminate other possibilities so he fails to convince us.
In addition（这个一般都用在比较靠后的位置）, even if the children are not raised up by the entire village, there is no solid foundation that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid. It is entirely possible that in this circumstance, the observation fails to provide facts about the living conditions of the children; whereas in other researches the observations are more suitable and effective. Or perhaps Dr.Field also adopted other approaches to draw the conclusion so it is other methods to be(be去掉) blame rather than the observation-centered method.（这一点的分析还是很好的，但是建议你把这样关键的句子放在段首，比如the observation-centered method is not to blame even……） Without ruling out such alternative explanations the conclusion that the observation-centered method is invalid proves unwarranted as it stands.
Finally, the author asserts that the interview-centered method his team of graduate students working in the Tertia Island is（is去掉，然后你仔细的分析一下句子结构是不是更加的合理呢）
now adopted will establish a far more accurate understand of the traditions. Yet the author fails to point out why the noted anthropologist Dr.Field chose other method rather than the interview-centered method. What if there are barriers for the graduates when communicating with local children? It is the author who conducted an interview before and it is likely that Dr.Field and the author’s graduates find it a problem to communicate with locals.
To sum up, to make the argument further persuasive the author has to provide evidence that the Tertia’s children are on earth reared by an entire village; moreover, he should also prove that the observation-centered method is invalid when doing cultural research. To better evaluate the argument, I need to know that the graduates will achieve success with the interview-oriented approach.总之来说呢，问题还是出在分析题目上面，你想想机考的时候argument的时间是非常有限的，在这种情况下你还要保证不漏掉主要的逻辑错误，这真的需要你的洞察力。希望你看到之后可以给我一个回复。

Ocean~SprayUID: 2847693

结论应该是Dr.Field的observation-centered方法错误，而自己的interview-centered方法正确吧。他试图用例子来证明自己的研究正确，以此说明研究方法正确。而我照抄原话显得不贴切。

文中说的是in addition用在靠后的位置吗？

是的，现在对题目的分析能力还有很大欠缺。还有一星期多一点就考了，还是多看看题目分析吧~~谢谢批改，让我不敢懈怠，收获颇多。