欢迎拍 argument 36

crazyjooUID: 2805124

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: 454          TIME: 00:41:40          DATE: 2000-7-26 12:44:38







The arguer suggests that interview-centered method can facilitate a more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions in island cultures. To make to more substantiaed, the arguer points out that the observation-centered employed by Dr.Field is invalid in the field of culture study given Dr.Field's false conclusion proven by the arguer's recent study. However, the argument suffers from several flaws.


Firstly, by citing the recent interviews with children living in the group of islands, the arguer cannot justifiably conclude that children in Tertia were reared by their own biological parents rather than by an entire village. Common sense informs us that children prefer their biological parents over any other people even though they were not reared by parents. Biological parents have great impact on them, especially during the early ages of a child. It is tempting to think that children in Tertia were not reared by entire village until they were five years old. This is understandable. Because parents will spend more patient and care on babysitting which seems to be a troublesome task for others. As soon as the age of the children reached five, that is to say, he/she had already gain certain basic survival skills and can communicate with people, thus the entire village were more willing to take care of them.Without ruling this and other possibilities, it is presumptuous to say that children in Tertia were reared by their own biological parents rather than by an entire village.

Secondly, the arguer unfairly assumes that Dr.Field's conclusion is false.Things seldom remain the same over extended time. It is very likely that the study result of Dr.Field was accurate twenty years ago.However, the custom of Tertia had changed dramatically over the past twenty years.Thus the result of Dr.Field's study seems to be unreliable. In this light, it is unreasonable to judge an academic conclusion which written twenty years ago by today's criterion and situation.

Thirdly, even we accept the arguer's conclusion that Dr.Field's conclusion is a false one, the assertion that his observation-centered approach to studying cultures has no merit is dubious. Perhaps the error conclusion was derived from Dr.Field's mistakes or any other factors which  had nothing to do with the approach. Besides, the definition of culture is inclusive and complex. Even though the observation-centered approach do not fit the study of child-rearing traditions in island cultures, the arguer should not deny its merit in culture study as a whole.

To sum up, this argument is well present, but not thoroughly reasoned. To make it more logically acceptable, the arguer should provide us more detail information about the recent interviews in order to convince us that the result of the study is truly a valid one. Moreover, the argument would be more substantial if the arguer makes a comprehensive analysis over the validity of Dr.Field's study and the merit of the observation-centered approach to studying cultures.