Hi All,
Please review my argument essay. Any help is welcome. Please do comment.
Argument Task:
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.
Essay:
The argument is flawed because there are no clear evidences supporting the argument and whatever premises provided were questionable.
Dr. Karp does not mention what percent of the population he has interviewed. He just says that he has interviewed a group of children. It is a very vague sentence and we cannot infer what ratio of children was actually interviewed. This information is necessary to reach a conclusion, whether it be in support or against the argument.
If the number or percent of children interviewed had been accounted accurately, it would have immensely helped to reach a valid conclusion. The sentence might have also looked less vague and the premise might have actually helped the author in the argument.
Another flaw is that there are no established patterns or a set of recommended questionnaire. The questions may have been more parent-centric and might have influenced the result of the study. There is no mention of the subjects touched or what actually was the focal point of the questions.
We are very well aware that what a child says may influence the next child to say the same thing and we see it in our everyday lives. Children try to imitate adults all the time and also try to be like their peers. If a group of children were interviewed together, it is very much likely that what a few children said might have influenced the rest, thus making the interview-centric method highly questionable.
Thus, we can safely conclude that the interview-centric method is not the best way to understand child-rearing traditions. A more accurate and solid method is required for the assessment.
Thanks,
Limnash
Please review my argument essay. Any help is welcome. Please do comment.
Argument Task:
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.
Essay:
The argument is flawed because there are no clear evidences supporting the argument and whatever premises provided were questionable.
Dr. Karp does not mention what percent of the population he has interviewed. He just says that he has interviewed a group of children. It is a very vague sentence and we cannot infer what ratio of children was actually interviewed. This information is necessary to reach a conclusion, whether it be in support or against the argument.
If the number or percent of children interviewed had been accounted accurately, it would have immensely helped to reach a valid conclusion. The sentence might have also looked less vague and the premise might have actually helped the author in the argument.
Another flaw is that there are no established patterns or a set of recommended questionnaire. The questions may have been more parent-centric and might have influenced the result of the study. There is no mention of the subjects touched or what actually was the focal point of the questions.
We are very well aware that what a child says may influence the next child to say the same thing and we see it in our everyday lives. Children try to imitate adults all the time and also try to be like their peers. If a group of children were interviewed together, it is very much likely that what a few children said might have influenced the rest, thus making the interview-centric method highly questionable.
Thus, we can safely conclude that the interview-centric method is not the best way to understand child-rearing traditions. A more accurate and solid method is required for the assessment.
Thanks,
Limnash
