This is my second argument essay written. Any feedback is appreciated.
Topic:
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 of mine proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is invalid and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid as well. The interview-centered method that my team of graduate students is currently using in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
Response:
The argument states that the interview-centered method is more accurate than the observation-centered approach in studying island cultures. While the author of the argument does compare the two different approaches to studying cultures, no evidence or examples are provided to support the conclusion. Therefore, the argument posed makes several assumptions with no proper evidence and therefore is invalid.
First, the author initially states that the observation-centered approach was conducted twenty years ago and the interview-centered method was conducted recently. This casts a considerable amount of doubt on the author's final conclusion because who can say if the two populations studied can be compared at all. The population that inhabited the island twenty years ago could be drastically different from the population studied recently. As with many other cultures, this island population could have changed many aspects of their society in the twenty years between the studies. If the author gave additional information of the similarity between the two populations of the studies, it could have strengthened his or her argument.
Second, the author further assumes that the interview-centered method is correct compared to observation-method because the children studied talked more about their biological parents. However, no information is given on how the interviews are conducted. We as the reader have no idea if the interview utilized leading questions to get desire answers or if children were pressured to give certain information. In addition, the author doesn't state if children were interviewed alone or in the presence of his or her parent. There also could be a language barrier that the author doesn't address. If a child were alone and couldn't fully understand questions due to language differences, the answers would be severely affected. If the author had stated the languages were similar or an interpreter was utilized it would have supported the assumptions made.
Despite the author attempting to state the interview method is superior to the observation method in the sample population, he or she goes further and states that it will be more accurate in all other island cultures as well. The author makes an even further assumption with this because he or she has no way of knowing how other island cultures live or welcome outsiders. Other island cultures may be the type to not communicate with outsiders at all. With a population like this, an interview approach wouldn't even be possible whereas an observation method could be utilized. If the author can show evidence that all island cultures would be open to interviewing, then this conclusion would be supported. Without the additional evidence mentioned, this author's claims are mere assumptions and are therefore invalid.
While the author initially started off well comparing the two different methods of studying populations, the conclusion made is not valid due to a lack of evidentiary support. Without providing more evidence to show the two study populations are similar and how interviewing was conducted, the conclusion that interviewing is superior to observation cannot be made. Furthermore, the conclusion that interviewing is better than observation in all island cultures is invalid due to the lack of evidence that all would be willing to participate in an interview process.
Topic:
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 of mine proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is invalid and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid as well. The interview-centered method that my team of graduate students is currently using in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
Response:
The argument states that the interview-centered method is more accurate than the observation-centered approach in studying island cultures. While the author of the argument does compare the two different approaches to studying cultures, no evidence or examples are provided to support the conclusion. Therefore, the argument posed makes several assumptions with no proper evidence and therefore is invalid.
First, the author initially states that the observation-centered approach was conducted twenty years ago and the interview-centered method was conducted recently. This casts a considerable amount of doubt on the author's final conclusion because who can say if the two populations studied can be compared at all. The population that inhabited the island twenty years ago could be drastically different from the population studied recently. As with many other cultures, this island population could have changed many aspects of their society in the twenty years between the studies. If the author gave additional information of the similarity between the two populations of the studies, it could have strengthened his or her argument.
Second, the author further assumes that the interview-centered method is correct compared to observation-method because the children studied talked more about their biological parents. However, no information is given on how the interviews are conducted. We as the reader have no idea if the interview utilized leading questions to get desire answers or if children were pressured to give certain information. In addition, the author doesn't state if children were interviewed alone or in the presence of his or her parent. There also could be a language barrier that the author doesn't address. If a child were alone and couldn't fully understand questions due to language differences, the answers would be severely affected. If the author had stated the languages were similar or an interpreter was utilized it would have supported the assumptions made.
Despite the author attempting to state the interview method is superior to the observation method in the sample population, he or she goes further and states that it will be more accurate in all other island cultures as well. The author makes an even further assumption with this because he or she has no way of knowing how other island cultures live or welcome outsiders. Other island cultures may be the type to not communicate with outsiders at all. With a population like this, an interview approach wouldn't even be possible whereas an observation method could be utilized. If the author can show evidence that all island cultures would be open to interviewing, then this conclusion would be supported. Without the additional evidence mentioned, this author's claims are mere assumptions and are therefore invalid.
While the author initially started off well comparing the two different methods of studying populations, the conclusion made is not valid due to a lack of evidentiary support. Without providing more evidence to show the two study populations are similar and how interviewing was conducted, the conclusion that interviewing is superior to observation cannot be made. Furthermore, the conclusion that interviewing is better than observation in all island cultures is invalid due to the lack of evidence that all would be willing to participate in an interview process.
