GRE写作官方题库高频ARGUMENT题目满分范文分享：research on chlidren in Tertia island
- 2020年04月09日14:35 来源：小站整理
- 参与（0） 阅读（339）
GRE作文虽然有官方题库，但题目总数太多让考生难以做到全部练一遍，因此看完题目直接看对应的高分范文学习写法思路就成为了更有效率的做法。下面小编就来为大家提供ARGUMENT题库高频作文题目的满分范文赏析：Nature’s Way, a chain of stores selling health food and other...
Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia. Using an observation-centered approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. Recently another anthropologist, Dr. Karp, visited the group of islands that includes Tertia and used the interview-centered method to study child-rearing practices. In the interviews that Dr. Karp conducted with children living in this group of islands, the children spent much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. Dr. Karp decided that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture must be invalid. Some anthropologists recommend that to obtain accurate information on Tertian child-rearing practices, future research on the subject should be conducted via the interview-centered method.
It might seem logical, at first glance, to agree with the argument in Dr. Karp’s article that children in Tertia are actually raised by their biological parents (and perhaps even, by implication, that an observation-centered approach to anthropological study is less valid than an interview-centered one). However, in order to fully evaluate this argument, an audience should be provided with additional evidence.
The audience should know, before deciding conclusively about the appropriate methodology for further study, if Tertia has changed significantly in the past 20 years. Dr. Field conducted his observational study 20 years ago and it is possible that Tertia has changed significantly since then. For example, if we had evidence suggesting that, since the original study, foreigners had settled on the island and introduced a new element that affected child rearing in Tertia, it would certainly weaken Dr. Karp’s argument. In that case, the original study could have been accurate and Dr. Karp’s study could be correct.
Further, in order to fully evaluate this claim the audience needs to learn more about the interview questions that Dr. Karp’s team used—what exactly did they ask? We don’t know, nor do we know what the children’s responses actually were. What did they say about their biological parents? The mere fact that they speak more frequently about their biological parents than they do about other adults does not mean that their biological parents had a greater role than the community did in their rearing. It would significantly undermine Dr. Karp’s argument if it turned out that the children said things like how much they missed their parents or how their parents had left them in a communal environment. Without knowing what the children said, one cannot accept the argument above without reservations.
It is slightly more difficult to discuss the evidence we might need in order to evaluate the more interesting claims in Dr. Karp’s article, namely his extension of the results of his study to a conclusion that interview-centered methods are inherently more valid than observational-centered approaches in the case of study in the group of islands including Tertia. In order to fully evaluate this claim one would require more examples of interview-based and observation-based anthropological studies and we would also need to look into different study designs. Perhaps Dr. Field did not conduct an effective observational study, but other observational approaches could be effective. In order to make such grandiose claims, Dr. Karp really needs to provide a lot of additional evidence (ideally a meta-analysis of hundreds of anthropological studies).