argument36 12月高强组第五次周二作业

sunnie_518UID: 2136235

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：600   用时：0:45:00         日期：2006-12-19


提纲: 1 Dr. Field的结论不一错误:作者的论据不可靠
     2 observation-centered 方法不一定错误
     3 结论武断

In this argument, the speaker claims that by using the interview-centered method, his team of graduate students working in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures. To justify his claim the speaker cites result of his own recent interview which he contends that prove Dr.Field's conclusion about Tertian village is false and the observation-centered approach to studying culture adopted by the doctor is invalid. A close examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the speaker's claim is.

Firstly, the argument relies on a problematic assumption that Dr.Field's conclusion about Terian village is false. The speaker's interviewing result which shows that these children spend much more time talking about their own biological parents than about other adults in the village lend little support to his assumption. This result only indicates that these children contact more with their parents than with other adults. It is highly possible that although the children are cultivated and taught necessary skills to survive by entire village and have meals in different villagers' home in turn , they spend most of their rest time living  with their biological parents and due to the close ties of consanguinity, biological parents are more care about their own children which cause these children tend to communicate frequently with and establish intimate relationships with their parents. Meanwhile, there is no information about how the interview is carried out. Are the topics contained in the interview prone to direct the children to talk more about their biological parents? If so, the credibility of the interview is open to doubt. Furthermore, the visit of Dr.Field on the island was made 20 year ago, while the speaker has done his interview recently. What if the culture of Teria has changed during 20 years, even if the speaker's interview is valid, it can not prove that the conclusion of Dr.Field is wrong. Overall, unless the speaker can provide more relevant information about his assumption, we can not believe that the generation made by Dr.Field is false.

Secondly, no strong substantial evidences are provided to support the assumption that the observation-centered approach to studying culture is invalid. Granted the conclusion of Dr.Field is incorrect, it is arbitrary to ascribe the fallacy to invalidity of researching method. In fact, whether the study is correct or nor are influenced by many other factors such as the ability of the researchers or some unexpected issues. Since the speaker fails to rule out other factor may accounting for the assuming errors in Dr.Field's results, it is presumptuous to assert that the observation-centered approach is invalid

Finally, the speaker makes a hasty generalization that his students working in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of traditions and cultures in this island. Even if the observation-centered approach is invalid, there is no evidence to confirm that interview-centered approach is more appropriate than observation-centered one to study cultures in island. Furthermore, the possibility that the speaker just used his interview-centered approach successfully in Tertia does not guarantee the approach will absolutely be applicable to study correspondent traditions and cultures in other islands. Meanwhile, granted the interview-centered approach is useful, do graduate students have enough ability and experiences to put it well into practice? If they have not, merely depending on efficient method, the more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions can also not be established. Therefore, without ruling out these possibilities, the speaker's conclusion is unconvincing.

In summary, since the author commits the above mentioned logical mistakes and fails to consider the whole situation comprehensively, his recommendation should not be adopted.

waidswUID: 2256074

In this argument, the speaker claims that by using the interview-centered method, his team of graduate students working in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures. To justify his claim the speaker cites result of his own recent interview which he contends that prove Dr.Field's conclusion about Tertian village is false and the observation-centered approach to studying culture adopted by the doctor is invalid. A close examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the speaker's claim is.

Firstly, the argument relies on a problematic assumption that Dr.Field's conclusion about Terian village is false. The speaker's interviewing result which shows that these children spend much more time talking about their own biological parents than about other adults in the village lend little support to his assumption. This result only indicates that these children contact more with their parents than with other adults. It is highly possible that although the children are cultivated and taught necessary skills to survive by entire village and have meals in different villagers' home in turn(直接说the children are brought up by the whole village就可以了吧), they spend most of their rest time living with their biological parents and due to the close ties of consanguinity, biological parents are more（likely to）care about their own children which cause these children tend to communicate frequently with (可以这样并列吗？)and establish intimate relationships with their parents. Meanwhile, there is no information about how the interview is carried out. Are the topics contained in the interview prone to direct the children to talk more about their biological parents? If so, the credibility of the interview is open to doubt. Furthermore, the visit of Dr.Field on the island was made 20 year ago, while the speaker has done his interview recently. What if the culture of Teria has changed during 20 years, even if the speaker's interview is valid, it can not prove that the conclusion of Dr.Field is wrong. Overall, unless the speaker can provide more relevant information about his assumption, we can not believe that the generation（generalization） made by Dr.Field is false.

Secondly, no strong substantial evidences are provided to support the assumption that the observation-centered approach to studying culture is invalid. Granted the conclusion of Dr.Field is incorrect, it is arbitrary to ascribe the fallacy to invalidity of researching method. In fact, whether the study is correct or not are influenced by many other factors such as the ability of the researchers or some unexpected issues. Since the speaker fails to rule out other factor may accounting for the assuming errors in Dr.Field's results, it is presumptuous to assert that the observation-centered approach is invalid

Finally, the speaker makes a hasty generalization that his students working in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of traditions and cultures in this island.(原文只说了children rearing traditions there and in other island cultures) Even if the observation-centered approach is invalid, there is no evidence to confirm that interview-centered approach is more appropriate than observation-centered one to study cultures in island. （这句话有点空，不如和下句和并好了）Furthermore, the possibility that the speaker just used his interview-centered approach successfully in Tertia does not guarantee the approach will absolutely be applicable to study correspondent traditions and cultures in other islands. Meanwhile, granted the interview-centered approach is useful, do graduate students have enough ability and experiences to put it well into practice（如果这次结果是对的， 我想他们还是有这样的能力的， 所以我觉得这一点不太好，作者是先通过这次调查推广到所有的island, 我觉得只要指出错误推广就可以了）? If they have not, merely depending on efficient method, the more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions can also not be established. Therefore, without ruling out these possibilities, the speaker's conclusion is unconvincing.

In summary, since the author commits the above mentioned logical mistakes and fails to consider the whole situation comprehensively, his recommendation should not be adopted.

Sunnie 的这篇argument写得还是很不错的， 错误的地方都找到了，语言也很不错，只是深入的论证稍有点不够。  

sunnie_518UID: 2136235

谢谢czm的指点,我也想深入的写,但是每次写就越觉得逻辑乱了.