新G argument，求牛人修改。感激不尽！！！

brucewanUID: 3053604

新G Argument，求牛人修改。感激不尽！！！8月份考新G，刚准备Argument，一下是我写的第一篇。求狠人修改，尤其是结构方面。感激不尽！！！
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 of mine proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about
Tertian village culture is invalid and thus that the observation-centered approach to
studying cultures is invalid as well. The interview-centered method that my team of
graduate students is currently using in Tertia will establish a much more accurate
understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the
argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and
what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.



  While it may be true that the children in Tersia are reared by their own biological parents, Dr. Karl’s conclusion that Dr. Field is false and interview-centered method to study cultures is more valid , contrasted with the observation-centered approach , is not persuasive. Though his/her interview shows that the children talk more about their biological parents than other adults in the village, Dr. karp’s argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to his/her conclusion.
  Firstly, consider Dr. Karp’s interviews as the evidence to back his/her claim. The author only informs us that he interviews children living in a group of islands including Tersia, which makes his/her assumption that this interviews can back his/her statement about Tersia unwarranted. Maybe the children who talk more about their biological parents are from other islands in this group, thus you can not imply that the situation in Tersia is the same. Furthermore, even though children in Tersia talk more about their biological parents, the connection between who the children talk more about and who rear the children is infirm, unless the details of the interview is not revealed. It is possible that Dr. krap ask more about their feeling about their biological parents or they children only talk about their separation with their biological parents, which would make his interview reliable. To make his/her argument more persuasive, the author need to stress his interviews more on Tersia and inform us more details about his/her interview.
  Additionally, the author also implies that the children-rearing traditions in  Tersia has not changed in the past 20 years. While Dr. Krap’s interview is likely reveal the actual children-rearing traditions there, the unwarranted assumption that the traditions when Dr. Field visited there 20 years ago stayey unchanged is not persuasive enough to lead the conclusion that Dr. Field’s statement is invalid. It is possible that the children-rearing culture of the around islands or other countries did affect Tersia thoroughly. To strengthen his argument, Dr. Krap need some particular information about the traditions in Tersia 20 years ago from others’ survey or implement a effective interview asking a wide range of residents about the children-rearing traditions 20 years ago.
  Building upon the assumptions described above, Dr. Karp further concludes that the observation-centered approach to studying culture is invalid and the interview-centered method is more accurate. Though it maybe true that children in Tersia was reared by their biological parents, it can not lead to his claim: interview-centered method is more effective to study culture, unless the assumption that research method and conclusion have a very strong connection can be effectively proved, which Dr. Karp doesn’t convince us. While Dr. Karp’s interview about the traditions is more accurate on revealing the true, Tersia is only a special case which may not reveal the whole. Thus, could the interview-centered method be applied to study other culture is questionable. Hence, Dr. Karp can not convince us until much more cases is thoroughly analyzed.
  It may be true that a more proper research method often lead to a more persuasive conclusion, a rigorous, fastidious and good researcher would always consider its complexity and assorted possibility. While the argument does highlight a possibility, more effective interviews, more relative cases and details are needed to support the conclusion
.

咖啡盐UID: 2973669

这排版乱的....