Argument36 （12月作文高强组——好好学习，天天作文）

一月一号UID: 2148376

有几天没写了，果然手生了.......
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: 409          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-12-19

The argument above is not cogent in that the arguer's conclusion that Dr. Field about child-rearing is not accurate and his research methods is more valid is nor persuasive as it stands. The unconvincing study result and the illogical analysis on the credibility of research methods weaken his recommendation of his own research methods.
First, the author's recent research cannot provide persuasive evidence to the conclusion that Dr. Field's research twenty years ago is wrong. The author fails to take into account the fact that the children in Teria talk about their biological parents more than other adults in the village do not necessarily indicate that they are reared by their own biological parents. It is likely that they are entirely reared by the whole village and meanwhile their biological parents may spend more time with them. Thus, children are more likely talk about their biological parents more than other people in the village. Besides, the author also ignores the possibility that the customer in Teria may change during the past 20 years. It is possible that with more communication with other culture, people may change their way of rearing children.  
Second, even if Dr. Field conclusion is false, which is, of course, a unwarranted assumption, we cannot conclude that the observation-centered approach in invalid. As there is no other evidence to indicate that this observation-centered approach is invalid in other research, How about other anthropologist's accomplishment with this approach? Though Dr. Field is noted, it is also likely that he may commit a mistake and thus it made he draw a false conclusion. Thus it is the fault of Dr. Feild's own mistake but not the fault of observation-centered approach.
At last, even if the observation-centered approach is invalid, there is no any information to indicate that the interview-centered approach is useful in studying island culture. We cannot get any information that how widely this interview-centered approach is used in the anthropological research. Whether it is feasible in any island? There may be some island, where people there use language we cannot understand. Thus how can we expect that use interview to study the customer of that island? Besides, as sometimes people are not aware of their way of life and may give some false information. Thus, without any evidence to identify the use and effects of this interview-centered approach, I hardly can share the author's recommendation.
In sum, this augment commits few logical fallacies which weaken its credibility.

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

The argument above is not cogent in that the arguer's conclusion that Dr. Field about child-rearing is not accurate and his research methods is more valid is nor persuasive as it stands. The unconvincing study result and the illogical analysis on the credibility of research methods weaken his recommendation of his own research methods. First, the author's recent research cannot provide persuasive evidence to the conclusion that Dr. Field's research twenty years ago is wrong. The author fails to take into account the fact that the children in Teria talk about their biological parents more than other adults in the village do not necessarily indicate that they are reared by their own biological parents. It is likely that they are entirely reared by the whole village and meanwhile their biological parents may spend more time with them. Thus, children are more likely talk about their biological parents more than other people in the village. Besides, the author also ignores the possibility that the customer in Teria may change during the past 20 years. It is possible that with more communication with other culture, people may change their way of rearing children.  (时效性跟调查性感觉不是一个逻辑层次上的,可以分开说,现在我看下来也找不出太多错误, 但又感觉论述不够全面. 比如为什么会It is likely that they are entirely reared by the whole village and meanwhile their biological parents may spend more time with them, 最好能为你的他因给出一定的理由) Second, even if Dr. Field('s) conclusion is false, which is, of course, a unwarranted assumption (假设DF的是个无理由的假设? 不用这么说吧, 意思不太明确, 就书说他错的就行了), we cannot conclude that the observation-centered approach in invalid. As there is no other evidence to indicate that this observation-centered approach is invalid in other research, How about other anthropologist's accomplishment with this approach? Though Dr. Field is noted, it is also likely that he may commit a mistake and thus it made he draw a false conclusion. Thus it is the fault of Dr. Feild's own mistake but not the fault of observation-centered approach. (感觉还是缺乏展开, 对于其它案例的质问有些无力, 不如直接说没证据表明DF的错误是由于研究方法引起的) At last, even if the observation-centered approach is invalid, there is no any information to indicate that the interview-centered approach is useful in studying island culture. We cannot get any information that how widely this interview-centered approach is used in the anthropological research. Whether it is （is it) feasible in any (other) island? There may be some island, where people there use language we cannot understand. Thus how can we expect that use interview to study the customer of that island? Besides, as sometimes people are not aware of their way of life and may give some false information. Thus, without any evidence to identify the use and effects of this interview-centered approach, I hardly can share the author's recommendation.(这段我认为攻击方向错了，没有联系作者的论点。作者的“我们在用访问的手法”是一个论据，攻击它当然没错，但他的论点是：在这个岛上我的学生能有更准确的调查结果。算是对于他们在这个岛上成果的无论据推断和草率推广，对着最后那句话打就可以了。） In sum, this augment commits few logical fallacies which weaken its credibility.

（可能的确是受字数限制，论证不是很充分，加油提高下量吧）