欢迎拍文修改小组7.25作业 a

迷失的鱼UID: 2850922

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: 456
TIME: 00:32:00
DATE: 2010/7/25 20:12:08

In the article, the author claims that his team will establish a more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures based on the conclusion that observation-centered is invalid while his team uses interview-centered method. In addition, to explain that observation-centered method is invalid, he compares two methods study the same object which different results. However, these evidences bolster little to his claim.

First of all, the author's interview-centered method is open to doubt. How does this interview conduct? How many children are involved? Without any detail about the interview-centered survey, we can also consider that those interviews are leading and the children
respond the expected answer, Or there are too few children involved and a part of the island are questioned, if so, the children respond cannot represent the whole children in the island, which render the conclusion unconvincing. Moreover, the author concludes that children spend more time talking with their biological parents cannot demonstrate they are rear mostly by their biological parents because usually children, especially the younger ones, need more time stay home with their parents.

Secondly, the author's conclusion that observation-centered method is invalid is based on the different results of two studying methods. However, twenty years between could make any change of the object. For example, twenty years ago, the children on the island were indeed reared by an entire village while their parents need to farm outside most of daytime, but now parents do not need so much time to work outside and have more time with their children. Likely, if twenty years ago the residents on the island are unlike to be asked unlike recent years because of shame or something, observation-centered method will be valid and reasonable. Falling to take into consideration those possibilities, the author cannot draw any persuasive conclusion.

Thirdly, even admitting that interview-centered method is more useful, the author unfairly assumes that his team will establish a much more accurate understanding solely because they used interview-centered method. However, without any other information to confirm their casual relationship, we can suppose that there are other explanations. For instance, whether the questions are reasonable and thorough? How do they deal with the statistics? And how do they understand the tradition with various answers? All of possibilities above could have an influence on the accuracy of understanding. Not ruling out the explanations above, the author unfortunately make his conclusion groundless.

To sum up, the author argues his team will do better with interview-centered method compared with observation-centered method, but he also commits some fallacies. To better support his claim, the author should provide more information judging whether is better. To further evaluate his claim, he should analyze other factors determining the accuracy of the study.

alickenUID: 2845947

In the article, the author claims that his team will establish a more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures based on the conclusion that observation-centered is invalid while his team uses interview-centered method. In addition, to explain that observation-centered method is invalid, he compares two methods study the same object which different results. However, these evidences bolster little to his claim.

First of all, the author's interview-centered method is open to doubt. How does this interview conduct? How many children are involved? Without any detail about the interview-centered survey, we can also consider that those interviews are leading and the children respond the expected answer, Or there are too few children involved and a part of the island are questioned, if so, the children respond cannot represent the whole children in the island, which render the conclusion unconvincing. Moreover, the author concludes that children spend more time talking with their biological parents cannot demonstrate they are rear mostly by their biological parents because usually children, especially the younger ones, need more time stay home with their parents.(既然都和亲身父母在一起了，还不能说明他们更多是被亲身父母养大？)

Secondly, the author's conclusion that observation-centered method is invalid is based on the different results of two studying methods. However, twenty years between(years’ span) could make any change of the object(object不好). For example, twenty years ago, the children on the island were indeed reared by an entire village while their parents need to farm outside most of daytime, but now parents do not need so much time to work outside and have more time with their children. Likely, if twenty years ago the residents on the island are unlike to be asked unlike recent years because of shame or something, observation-centered method will be valid and reasonable. Falling to take into consideration those possibilities, the author cannot draw any persuasive conclusion.

Thirdly, even admitting that interview-centered method is more useful, the author unfairly assumes that his team will establish a much more accurate understanding solely because they used interview-centered method. However, without any other information to confirm their casual relationship, we can suppose that there are other explanations. For instance, whether the questions are reasonable and thorough? How do they deal with the statistics? And how do they understand the tradition with various answers? All of possibilities above could have an influence(influences) on the accuracy of understanding. Not ruling out the explanations above, the author unfortunately make his conclusion groundless.

To sum up, the author argues his team will do better with interview-centered method compared with observation-centered method, but he also commits some fallacies. To better support his claim, the author should provide more information judging whether is better. To further evaluate his claim, he should analyze other factors determining the accuracy of the study.

我觉得顺序应该调整一下，第2段和第3段换一下。先说observation-centered method没得问题，再说interview-centered method有问题，最后让步攻击他的团队有问题。