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.
In the arguement, Dr. Karp argues that Dr.Field's research and the method of observation research are both invalid. This argument is based on the premise that during one of Dr. Karp's interviews, the children spent more time talking about their biological parents, and it is this single statement that acts as the foundation for Dr. Karp's arguments and conclusions and it is this point that matters in the entire argument.
Now, Dr. Karp's argument may be valid and his conclusions logical. However, what the given argument lacks is the details of his analysis, and in particular the minutinae of the conversation he or his graduate students may have had with the children of Tertia. In fact, it is the details of this conversation that would reveal as to whether Dr. Karp is right or wrong. Dr. Karp's argument may have been strengthened if he mentioned that most of the conversation was about how the children were brought up. However, since the argument does not have the slightest inkling of the nature of the discourse students had with the native children, the conversation could have been about anything. It could have been about who each children live with, or it could be anything not pertinent to being brought up. If such is the case, Then the conversation and interview approach simply fails in extracting the relevant data and information.
If the interview-centered approach involves talking mostly about things other than how the children were brought up, then the single column supporting Dr. Karp's entire arguemnt simply becomes non-existence. If this is so, then the claim made about the invalidity of the original study is a complete farce and the assertion the the interview-apporach is superior remains uncorroborated.
"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.
In the arguement, Dr. Karp argues that Dr.Field's research and the method of observation research are both invalid. This argument is based on the premise that during one of Dr. Karp's interviews, the children spent more time talking about their biological parents, and it is this single statement that acts as the foundation for Dr. Karp's arguments and conclusions and it is this point that matters in the entire argument.
Now, Dr. Karp's argument may be valid and his conclusions logical. However, what the given argument lacks is the details of his analysis, and in particular the minutinae of the conversation he or his graduate students may have had with the children of Tertia. In fact, it is the details of this conversation that would reveal as to whether Dr. Karp is right or wrong. Dr. Karp's argument may have been strengthened if he mentioned that most of the conversation was about how the children were brought up. However, since the argument does not have the slightest inkling of the nature of the discourse students had with the native children, the conversation could have been about anything. It could have been about who each children live with, or it could be anything not pertinent to being brought up. If such is the case, Then the conversation and interview approach simply fails in extracting the relevant data and information.
If the interview-centered approach involves talking mostly about things other than how the children were brought up, then the single column supporting Dr. Karp's entire arguemnt simply becomes non-existence. If this is so, then the claim made about the invalidity of the original study is a complete farce and the assertion the the interview-apporach is superior remains uncorroborated.
