ARGUMENT36 [076G飞跃小组]zengyouwen第5次作业 求拍留链必复

zengyouwenUID: 2284999

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: 356          TIME: 上午 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-3-1
提纲：
1.       他们仅仅是采用了访谈的形式
2.       在谈话中提到父母次数上多于抚养人与谁养他们无必然因果关系
3.       即使Dr.Field's conclusion是错误的，但是也不能表明观察为中心的研究方法有错
The arguer claims that Dr.Field's conclusion about the Tertian village culture is false and the observation-centered approach to studying culture is invalid. To substantiate this the arguer cites several evidence such as their interviews in their research. But the fallacies that the arguer commits make this argument inconvincing.

First,the other problem that undermines the argument is the method the arguer used. Their group just interviewed these children in this island and got out the conclusion, which may be baseless. If the tradition of the island is to talk about  much more about their biological parents to others instead of other adults,how do the arguer conclude that the conclusion made  by the Dr.Field's group is not right.In stead , they should observe the children's truly daily lives,and go  to their families or the places the live,and even talk to their parents to make out the truth.Not just by this method.

Second,  the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the children's talks about their biological parents and the fact that who reared them.The words of the interview may be not the truth about the bring  up relationship between the children and the villagers, thus also does not follow that the arguer's assertion which indicates the Dr.Field's research is useless.Instead the research should go to a family or into their lives to see whether the children's words is true or not,but not just give hasty conclusion.

Third, even if the assumption that the Dr.Field's conclusion is inconvincing , it does not follow that the observation-centered approach to studying culture is invalid. This studying just  get a superfical observation result instead of  the real life of these villagers,maybe it just a careless action of the researchers'  but it does not mean that this method will be invalid when it is used in studying the culture of the whole.So ,the reasoning process made by the arguer lacks evidence thus could not lend strong support to the final conclusion.

In sum, the argument lacks of crediblity as the existing weakpoints mentioned above , to make it more reasonable and more convincing more evidence and effecive causes should be set forth.