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.
The argument reaches the conclusion that Dr. Karp’s interview-centred approach provides a better understanding of child-rearing traditions in island cultures, like that of Tertia. This conclusion is based on the premise that the recent interviews yielded info in favour of a different outcome, as compared to that of Dr. Field. However, Dr. Karp fails to provide adequate evidence in backing up his claims and solidifying his logic. There are three important pieces of evidence that are necessary for a satisfactory evaluation of the argument.
First, the argument states that interviewed children talked more about their biological parents than about other adults. It fails to establish whether the fact that the children talked about their parents really meant they were raised by them. This correlation has nowhere been explained by Karp, and would need significant support by means of more evidence, other studies, etc. It is possible that the children talked about their parents because they do not spend much time with them, or because they just wanted their parent beside them when interviewing with the anthropology research team. It may also be possible that the interview misinterpreted the children, or that the mere process of interviewing influenced the children’s answers, with leading questions. In these cases, the argument breaks down completely, and the interview-centred method would not be ‘more accurate.’ The lack of evidence in this regard is a gaping hole in Karp’s logic, which persists in the current form of the argument.
Second, the argument fails to prove that the interviewees were representative of all the children of Tertia. Perhaps, a few families on the island prefer to raise their children by themselves, while other parents allow the whole village to rear theirs. If such children formed a disproportionate portion of the interviewee group, then it would skew the observations and results obtained. In fact, Karp fails to establish the exact reason for his disagreement with Field’s study, and it is possible that Field took the observational approach so as to get a bigger-picture view of the island, and to not interfere with the ordinary functioning of Tertian society. By not providing exact numbers or data for the so-called ‘accuracy,’ Karp’s argument fails to make a persuasive case for the validity of its methods.
Finally, the argument fails to consider that different island cultures may not be adequately studied using a single method, and does not provide evidence to disprove this. It may be the case that some island cultures are easier for anthropologists to interact with, and are easier to evaluate and observe. It may also be the case that children of some areas are more introverted and do not wish to be interviewed by people from the outside. In this scenario, Field’s method may prove to be more effective – Karp must provide specific evidence to disprove this, to make a valid argument in favour of altering anthropological practices in investigating island cultures.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed. A failure to present adequate evidence is the reason for multiple logic ‘holes’ in Dr. Karp’s argument, as detailed above. He should pay more attention to these parts of his argument, and patch them up using substantiative evidence. Such improvements in the argument could even result in Karp finding ways to better his approach, and further make the conclusions of anthropologists more accurate.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2023-09-01 | Sophy@ | 66 | view |
2023-09-01 | Sophy@ | 58 | view |
2023-08-23 | dhruv7315 | 77 | view |
2023-08-19 | Mayuresh08 | 64 | view |
2023-08-18 | Dinesh4518 | 85 | view |
- Some people argue that successful leaders in government industry or other fields must be highly competitive Other people claim that in order to be successful a leader must be willing and able to cooperate with others Write a response in which you discuss 70
- So long as they are aware of the dangers involved adults should not be legally bound to use seat belts Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take 62
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and sup 85
- Governments are justified in circumventing civil laws when doing so is vital to the protection of national security Write an essay in which you take a position on the statement above In developing and supporting your position you should consider ways in w 66
- The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors Techcorporation is our top pick for investment this term We urge all of our clients to invest in this new company For the first time in ten years a company that has developed satellite te 58
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 559 350
No. of Characters: 2874 1500
No. of Different Words: 257 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.862 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.141 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.961 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 212 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 163 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 122 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.409 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.188 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.591 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.318 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.535 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.127 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5