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."
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 claims Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is invalid and the observation-centered approach carried by Dr. Field is also invalid. Stated in this way the argument manipulated factors and conveys a distorted view of the situation,which fails
to reveal several factor on which it could be evaluated.
...
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 claims Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is invalid and the observation-centered approach carried by Dr. Field is also invalid. Stated in this way(,) the argument manipulated factors( what factors?) and conveys a distorted view of the situation( whats the distorted view?) ,which fails to reveal several factor(s) on which it could be evaluated. (You have a good introduction, but it may helpful if you took a couple of sentences to describe what factors and distorted views Dr. Field and Dr. Karp are speaking of.)
Firstly First, the survey had been done two?( twenty or two years?) years back and by observing Dr. Field concluded that children in island of Tertia were reared by an entire village.This statement is a stretch. M oreover, (the) Argument readily assumes that observation-centered approach is not an effective approach to provide any conclusion. It might be possible that Dr. Field had observed only a few children on the
island of Tertia and by observing them he concluded that children were reared by an entire village. (Spell check and space your sentences after a period))
Secondly Second, Dr. Khap, an anthropologist, who took interviews of children living in the group of islands that include tertia.
This evidence undermine(s) the Dr. Khap statement that the interview- centered method is more accurate than observation
based.Because Dr. khap not only took interviews of children who were living on teria but also apart from tertia.
So,it might be possible that the conclusion made by Dr. Khap is based on the accumulated data of different Island. Cleary
there is no evidence that can commensurate that the interview-centered approach is better than
observation-centered approach of Dr. Field. ( Always capitalize cities and capitalize names of people)
The argument could be bolstered if Dr. Khap had provided the exact statistics of interviews done to the Tertia's children or
if they have provided the conclusion based only on island of Tertia. These are some factor which makes the argument more reasonable.
In the conclusion, the argument remains flawed for the above-mentioned reason and is therefore unconvincing.
It could can be considerably strengthen(ed) if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts.Wi thout this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Hi! You have a very good vocabulary, you know how to use the data above to state your argument, which is a good skill to have! I found your argument difficult to follow, you mix up Dr. Khap's studies with Dr. Field's studies. Thus, making it hard to read into your argument the first three paragraphs.
Suggestion: Use one paragraph to explain Dr. Khap's views and another to explain Dr. Fields views. Use your third paragraph to tie in both their arguments, and to make your point with last paragraph( as you did above). I also placed some suggestions for your grammatical errors,
Good luck!
