Argument21 第一篇 4.21考 求互批

mrescUID：2869511

21.The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist.

"Twentyyears ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertiaand concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by anentire village rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recentinterviews with children living in the group of islands that includes Tertiashow that these children spend much more time talking about their biological parentsthan 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 theobservation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid as well. Theinterview-centered method that my team of graduate students is currently usingin Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearingtraditions there and in other island cultures."

Write a response in which you discuss what specificevidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence wouldweaken or strengthen the argument.

In this argument, Dr. Karp reaches theconclusion that children in a Tertian village are mainly reared by their biologicalparents rather than the entire village, which contradicts Dr. Field's finding of20 years earlier. Furthermore, Dr. Karp claims that the observation-centeredapproach that Dr. Field used is invalid and implies that the interview-centeredmethod used by his team of graduate students is applicable to all islandcultures in attempting to understand their child-rearing traditions better. However, this argument presentsinsufficient evidence to be convincing.

Firstly, Dr. Karp's conclusion rests on the questionableassumption that, for 20 years, the situation of Tertia has remained unchanged.Perhaps the children's biological parents were not living with them two decadesago. For example, they may have worked far away from the village, so that theresponsibility of rearing the children fell on the entire community. Now,however, it may be that the parents tend to work in the village, where they areable to educate their children by themselves. Thus, even if Dr. Field’s conclusion is invalid in thepresent situation, it could have been valid 20 years ago.

Secondly, in addition to this assumptionthat the child-rearing traditions have remained the same, Dr. Karp provides insufficientinformation on his interviews. Therefore, there is a begged question: Whatexactly did the children say about their biological parents? One could arguethat the children frequently complain about their parents’ usually being verybusy and having no time to take care of them, which directly undermines Dr.Karp's conclusion. In fact, there is no clear causal link between the findingthat the children often talk about their parents and the asserted ‘fact’ thatthey are mainly reared by them. Even if the children were to talk about happyexperiences with their parents, this would not necessarily mean that they were rearedby them. Therefore, withoutproviding concrete information on Tertian child-rearing traditions as revealedby the interviews, Dr. Karp should not use his recent finding to refute Dr.Field's conclusion.

Finally, even if Dr. Karp's conclusion wereplausible, he commits thefallacy of sweeping generalization in claiming that his interview-centeredmethod is applicable to all the island cultures. Perhaps it is not hismethod but other factors such as his graduate students' accurate observation oflocal villagers that contribute largely to his success. Furthermore, one case studydoes not demonstrate the overall performance of his interview-centered methodwhen used on other islands. People elsewhere may be reluctant to talk withstrangers due to their introverted disposition, in which case Dr. Field'sobservational approach may be more applicable. Unless all these possibilities are ruled out by furtherevidence, this argument remains unconvincing.

In sum, rigorous scrutiny of this argumentindicates that Dr. Karp notonly fallaciously discredits Dr. Field's observations but also unjustifiablyjumps to his own conclusion regarding Tertian child-rearing traditions.To make his argument logically sound, Dr. Karp should provide more tangibleevidence to support his finding in Tertia, as well as further information aboutthe validity of his interview-centered method in other island cultures.