argument36--欢迎拍文

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:520
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-07-25 20:13:28

The author suggests that their team's interview-centered methods will guarantee a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions. To support the conclusion the article compares the results of Dr.Field twenty years ago and that of recent interviews. However, the argument suffers from several logical flaws making the conclusion unconvincing.

As the beginning, the argument is based on an assumption that the way of people in Tertia rearing children was kept the same through the past twenty years. However, that's left not substantiated. If the way they rear children has changed the author's following reasoning is totally wrong, saying that the result of the research twenty years ago is false because of the observation-centered approach. Since the development took place in the past twenty years is enough to change the way of rearing children, but the author leaves that out of consideration.

Furthermore, even if we assume that the assumption of the author can be proved, only with the fact of the recent interview is not enough to overthrow the conclusion of twenty years ago. That's because the author only cites the fact that children there spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in village. However, it is generally accepted that what the interviewees talk about is partly decided by the interviewer. So to make it convincing the author has better provide us more in-detailed information about the procedure of their interviews. On the other side, what the children talk illustrates little about the way they are reared, and that's only what they are interest to talk in the moment they are interviewed. So the cited information offers little substances about way children are reared and basing on which cannot we draw a conclusion that the result of Dr. Field is false.

What's more, even if we assume that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is false, but that's not necessarily results from their observation-centered approach. There are many factors other than that might take effect on Dr. Field's conclusion. That's because a result of observations is decided by both subjective and objective factors. Without consideration about other factors makes the conclusion groundless. There exists possibility like the local policies of that certain time and misunderstanding of some information.

However, before make it clear what makes the conclusion of Dr. Field false, and just with the change in method, there is still no guarantee of a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there. May be the understanding of the way of child-rearing is not the way of people there. For example the researchers think that the way children are reared depends on who take care of them but people in Tertia might think that’s lies on who pay for fees. So is to the research about that in other island cultures.


To make the argument convincing, the author should substantiate the assumption first, and then more in-detailed analysis about the study twenty years ago and changes might have taken place is needed. What’s more, the author’s team should make a more scientific plan about their interview with taking more practical situation into consideration.

迷失的鱼UID: 2850922

The author suggests that their team's interview-centered methods will guarantee a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions. To support the conclusion the article compares the results of Dr.Field twenty years ago and that of recent interviews. However, the argument suffers from several logical flaws making the conclusion unconvincing.

As the beginning, the argument is based on an assumption that the way of people in Tertia rearing children was kept the same through the past twenty years. However, that's left not substantiated. If the way they rear children has changed the author's following reasoning is totally wrong, saying that the result of the research twenty years ago is false because of the observation-centered approach. Since the development took place in the past twenty years is enough to change the way of rearing children, but the author leaves that out of consideration.

Furthermore, even if we assume that the assumption of the author can be proved, only with the fact of the recent interview is not enough to overthrow the conclusion of twenty years ago. That's because the author only cites the fact that children there spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in village. However, it is generally accepted that what the interviewees talk about is partly decided by the interviewer. So to make it convincing the author has better provide us more in-detailed information about the procedure of their interviews. On the other side, what the children talk illustrates little about the way they are reared, and that's only what they are interest to talk in the moment they are interviewed. So the cited information offers little substances about way children are reared and basing on which cannot we draw a conclusion that the result of Dr. Field is false.（你只提供可能性，没法证明是错的，只能说它不完全对）

What's more, even if we assume that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is false, but that's not necessarily results from their observation-centered approach. There are many factors other than that might take effect on Dr. Field's conclusion. That's because a result of observations is decided by both subjective and objective factors. Without consideration about other factors makes the conclusion groundless. There exists possibility like the local policies of that certain time and misunderstanding of some information.

However, before make it clear what makes the conclusion of Dr. Field false（同样不能用这个词）, and just with the change in method, there is still no guarantee of a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there. May be the understanding of the way of child-rearing is not the way of people there. For example the researchers think that the way children are reared depends on who take care of them but people in Tertia might think that’s lies on who pay for fees. So is to the research about that in other island cultures.

To make the argument convincing, the author should substantiate the assumption first, and then more in-detailed analysis about the study twenty years ago and changes might have taken place is needed. What’s more, the author’s team should make a more scientific plan about their interview with taking more practical situation into consideration.
组长大人思维清晰，但我觉得模板还是很重，我也正愁这事，不知如何解决