Please evaluate my GRE ISSUE TASK and ARGUMENT ISSUE

[shubhrika]

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 supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in

which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and

explain how these examples shape your position.

Positive and negative aspects are two sides of coin. It is never a good practice to focus on one side and neglect the other sides. Teaching is the basic fundamental of our life. Negligence is the foundation of the life’s study cannot be accepted. As a result, it is never a best way to teach by praising for positive actions and ignoring the negative ones.

Teaching, means to learn from our actions and we cannot ignore the actions which are not right as there are the most imperative learning of our life. Let’s exemplify, if you have cooked a dish which is cooked perfectly but the salt is in excess. You can never ignore the fact that the next time you have to decrease the quantity of salt. Ignorance is bliss. Learning from the mistakes make a recipe perfect. Negative result are as integral as the positive result to learn for the future.

 As praise for the good indeed motivates us but only praise won’t push the person to learn from it. Before the invention of the blub, Thomas Edison failed thousands of times. If he had ignored the failure and would have settled with a short achievement, we would never have lights in our home. Furthermore, he said the failure taught him 3000 things that cannot be used in the light bulb. As a result learning from the hard way is the best way.

Teaching is the most pristine and difficult jobs of all. As we don’t have to make the person learn it but remember it for rest of the life and sometimes abrasive punishment teaches us the most imperative lesson of the life. The great warrior always learnt from the failure and from the deaths of their dear one, the lessons of their life.

Teaching can never ignore any side of the result whether positive or negative. The best way to teach is to go hand in hand with praising for good actions and learning from the negative ones. Neither of the two aspects can be ignored in life.

 

                                         

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 following argument is flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily, the argument is based on the assumption that time doesn’t play any role the research. Furthermore, it is also considered that the rearing and talking about parents is equivalent. Thus making the weak argument that Tertian village culture as well as the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid.

The argument is mainly invalid owing to the reason that it doesn’t considered the fact that Dr. Field’s research was carried out twenty years ago. As the time changes the tradition also changes in the villages. The children who were observed by Dr Field are now adults and hence may be they were reared by the whole village but as the two decades have passed the parents are more protective towards the children and therefore tertian village culture is obsoleted. Dr Karp should have also interviewed the adults who were children at the time Dr Field study was executed. Though this would have given a much strong reason to extrapolate that the Tertain village culture was invalid yet this argument this fails to validate that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid.

The argument also fails to give strong evidence that the children of Tertain are not reared by the whole village. The argument that the talk more about their biological parents only give any strong proof that they are reared by their biological parents. May be the children are not good in communicating or maybe they are repeating the things that the children of the other islands are answering. This can also be considered that they are reared by the whole village but they have more affection towards their parents. As a result, we can say that besides interviewing the children, observing the children’s lifestyle is an integral aspect to validate that Tertain village culture is not practiced. Therefore concluding that interview based approach is better approach that observation centered is inaccurate.

As the argument has left many unanswered question as well as many factors has been ignored in the argument. Thus it fails to make convincing case that interview based approach is much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions.