argument 36

dsndiziUID: 2792853

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: 586
TIME: 00:30:00

DATE: 2010-7-25 16:01:16

Merely based on the unsounded assumptions and dubious evidence the arguer draws a conclusion that the study is false and they should use interview-centered method for better understanding of child-rearing traditions. In order to bolster the conclusion the arguer quotes a study investigated twenty years ago, and a further study which can show that children on Tertia island more likely to talk about their parents than other adults in village. In addition, the arguer claims that the observation-centered is invalid since the further study did not march the former study. Although the conclusion seems to be convincing and appealing at the first glance, it is in fact ill received after close scrutiny of the assumptions and evidences. In my point of view, there are at least three fatal defects.

First and foremost, the arguer assumes that the study in twenty years ago was false simply based on his new interviews with children living in that island. While there is no solid and sufficient evidence to show that it is necessarily the case. Maybe twenty years ago the island is indeed like the former study said, while situation changes twenty years later, children on the island were more reared by their biological parents, or may be a certain locations on that island have a certain percentage of the situation that children were reared by their biological parents in current, where is the later study conducted in. Factors such as these may also undermine the assumption that the investigation by Dr.Field is false.

In the second place, given that child on the island still reared by the entire village, the later study is highly open to question, since the arguer fails to establish a unscientific relationship between the fact that child on that island are more valuably taking about their biological parents. Actually, an explanation can be that just due to lacking connection with their biological parents led them more preferring to talk about their parents, as they may want to learn some experience from others about the feeling with parents. What' more, may be they just did not telling the true feeling during the interview, living on an island may led them can not communicate with people sincerely. On the other may children in the village, as them may always have changes take about their parents not only in schools, homes, or any public places, they may feel boring to talk about parents any more. Thus, the performance in the interview, which just cover a little time span, with so many possible casual occasions, the assumption is unwarranted.

Finally and may be the most importantly, the arguer hastily to draw the conclusion that interview is better than the observation approach when understanding some traditions and cultures. No evidence is listed to validate the assumption. Actually, it is a matter of fact that people always feel nervous in an interview, or it is very easy to uncover true emotions during an interview. Further, as traditions and cultures influenced people in the way they taking, their behaviors, their rituals or festivals, it is more scientific to observe them during a long time by observation-centered avenue.

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems to be logical at first, fails to substantiate strong and credible evidence to verify what the speaker indicates. In order to make the conclusion much more accepted and logical, the conclusion can be improved by reasoning more convincingly and citing more persuasive evidence, it can be further improved by taking every possible consideration into account.