欢迎拍--7月25日 ARGU(36)

xiaohuimi291UID: 2760978

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: 394
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-7-25 9:10:03

The author of this argument concludes that Dr. Field's research by observation is wng while his own research by interview is more accurate. To support his conclusion, the author points out that his recent interview reveals the false of Dr. Field's research. However, close scrutiny of the process and conclusion of the author's interview reveals several logical flaws in this argument.
First of all, the author mainly bases his claim that Dr. Field's research is wrong on the contrast of his own recent interview in the islands including Tertia and Dr. Field's. However, the author fails to realize that Dr. Field did his research twenty years ago, and with lapse of time, it is entirely possible that people in Tertia island change their custom of rearing children. Moreover, the two research did not survey the same area since Dr. Field investigated in Tertia island and the author did in the group of islands. It is possible that the rearing habit differs in different area in the group of islands and incidentally Dr. Field's goals have a different habit from the author's interviewees. If this is the case, the author's contrast is useless to support his claim.
Secondly, even if the contrast is agreeable, the author's claim also rests on his interview's result that children are likely to talk more often to their biological parents. Yet, common sense tells us that spent more time together could not mean the parental relationship. It is well known that in the collage students spend most of their time with their classmates and professionals. Could it reveal that classmates and professionals are one's parents? In fact, this improper deduction renders the argument unbelievable.
Thirdly, even though all of the flaws could be improved, the author also makes a too hasty conclusion that observation-centered approach is less accurate that interview-centered approach. Perhaps Dr. Field did make some false in his research and the author is more cautious investigating the facts, but it could not illustrate the advantage of the approach.
In sum, the argument is not well supported. To persuade me, the author should provide more accurate evidence that the Dr. Field and he did the research in the same place and their culture did not change all this years. To further support his claim, the author should some methodological evidence to reveal his approach is superior to Dr. Field’s.

chinese_idiotUID: 2854284

逻辑是没问题啊（但是有些话我还是必须翻译成中文才能理解你 不知道是我的问题还是你语言的问题）
北美范文的味道太重了