argument36 十二月高强组第五周周二作业, 请拍!

waidswUID: 2256074

题目：ARGUMENT 36 - 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."
字数：458-585          用时：0:30:00+10          日期：2006-12-19

1.       interview 有问题
代表性，
谈的多不代表就是父母养的
2 前一次调查不一定有错，观察为主的方法不一定有错
3 谈话为主的放法不一定别的地方也适用

The arguer claims that the conclusion made by Field is false and provides an interview-centered method which is more accurate in learning island cultures. This claim is flawed both in lack of evidence and the unsound reasoning; therefore I cannot concede with it.

To begin with, the arguer could not convince us that the former research accomplished by Field is wrong base on the recent interview. On the first place, the arguer assumes that the frequent mention about the parents means the children are reared by their parent rather than the whole village.  However, it is entirely possible it is not the case. There is no strong relationship between the rearing and the mention. It is a natural instinct to care about one's own children and therefore the children are more conscious about their parents. But such caring do not necessarily means rearing. It is possible that though the children are reared by the village, parents still pay more attention on their own children. Thus the children have talked about their biological parents.

On the other hand, there are no specific data to prove that the participants in the interview are repetitive and the procedure of the interview is scientific. A convincing conclusion has to base on the well conducted interview. Perhaps the amount of children took part in the interview is not adequate to draw any credible conclusion on. Perhaps the children interviewed are all in certain age and have more contact with their biological parents. Perhaps the questions in the interview are not totally neutral which induce the children to talk about their parents. Absent any indication about the credibility of the interview that the conclusion rooted on, the arguer could not assure me that the children are reared by their parents.   

Moreover, it is too hasty to conclude that the former conclusion is false, though assume that arguer’s research is accurate. The argument has mentioned that the former research is conducted 20 years ago. It is possible that the situation in that island has changed a lot and 20 years ago, the children are reared by the village whereas at present with the development of productivity and the change of people's mind, children are reared in family now. Without any illustration about whether the social constituents and family style have altered in the past 20 years, it is dubious to conclude that the former conclusion is false since the arguer has not taken into account the former conditions. Even assuming that Field’ conclusion is incorrect, it is premature to conclude that the observation based approach is invalid. Maybe Field has adopted such approach in a wrong way. Or the situation in that island is not proper for that approach while in other occasions that approach is effective.

Finally, even if the interview-centered research is succeed in the island of Tertia with the topic of children rearing, there is no persuasive evidence that such method will also succeed in researches of different cultures. Common sense informs me that diverse cultures are varying in many aspects, and scientific research has to be flexible according to different situations. Probably children in other cultures are much shyer and do not willing to take with strangers. If so, the interview centered method cannot be as accurate as expected.

To sum up, the arguer's claim is unconvincing as it stands, to better evaluate the claim the arguer has to provide more specific data and information to prove the accuracy of this research as well as the effectiveness of the interview centered research in other cultures.

郁闷啊，限时竟然没有成功！

一月一号UID: 2148376

The arguer claims that the conclusion made by Field is false and provides an interview-centered method which is more accurate in learning island cultures. 既然你開頭都承認它更精確了，還要怎麼論證阿？This claim is flawed both in lack of evidence and the unsound reasoning; therefore I cannot concede with it.

To begin with, the arguer could not convince us that the former research accomplished by Field is wrong base on the recent interview. On the first place,in the first place吧？ the arguer assumes that the frequent mention about the parents means the children are reared by their parent rather than the whole village.  However, it is entirely possible it is not the case.這個句子有點冗餘了，還不如直接就maybe it is not the case There is no strong relationship between the rearing and the mention. It is a natural instinct to care about one's own children and therefore the children are more conscious about their parents. But such caring do not necessarily means rearing. It is possible that though the children are reared by the village, parents still pay more attention on their own children. Thus the children have talked about their biological parents.

On the other hand, there are no specific data to prove that the participants in the interview are repetitive repetitive? 應該是representative 吧？ and the procedure of the interview is scientific. A convincing conclusion has to base on the well conducted interview. Perhaps the amount of children took part in the interview is not adequate to draw any credible conclusion on這個on是什麼意思啊？. Perhaps the children interviewed are all in certain age and have more contact with their biological parents. Perhaps the questions in the interview are not totally neutral which may induce the children to talk about their parents. Absent any indication about the credibility of the interview that the conclusion rooted on, the arguer could not assure me that the children are reared by their parents.   

Moreover, it is too hasty to conclude that the former conclusion is false, though assume that arguer’s research is accurate. The argument has mentioned that the former research is conducted 20 years ago. It is possible that the situation in that island has changed a lot and 20 years ago, the children are reared by the village whereas at present with the development of productivity and the change of people's mind, children are reared in family now. Without any illustration about whether the social constituents and family style have altered in the past 20 years, it is dubious to conclude that the former conclusion is false since the arguer has not taken into account the former conditions. Even assuming that Field’ conclusion is incorrect; it is premature to conclude that the observation based approach is invalid. Maybe Field has adopted such approach in a wrong way. Or the situation in that island is not proper for that approach while in other occasions that approach is effective. 這句話說得很模糊阿，評卷人很容易暈，最好還是點清清楚是那兩種方法，光是that 和other說不清楚阿

Finally, even if the interview-centered research is succeed in the island of Tertia with the topic of children rearing, there is no persuasive evidence that such method will also succeed in researches of different cultures. Common sense informs me that diverse cultures are varying in many aspects, and scientific research has to be flexible according to different situations. Probably children in other cultures are much shyer and do not willing to take with strangers. If so, the interview centered method cannot be as accurate as expected.

To sum up, the arguer's claim is unconvincing as it stands. To better evaluate the claim the arguer has to provide more specific data and information to prove the accuracy of this research as well as the effectiveness of the interview centered research in other cultures.
總體不錯了，基本錯誤都找到了，只有些小錯。關於限時別著急，我覺得這個狀態還是很有關係的，還有如果實在些寫不完，就精簡些句子吧，畢竟400多字也夠了，只要把問題說清楚就可以了，字數不一定要追求