Arg task essay

[dicapino]

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.

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

 

Dr. Karp refuting of an original study carried out on the island of Tertia has made some scientists aver that to understand Tertian child rearing practices studies should make use of the interview centred method. While Field’s methodology may be spurious, the interview centred method has to answer the following questions: wether Tertia is similar to other surrounding islands, and if children talking more about their parents mean that they were not trained by other adults.

Firstly, is Tertia similar in totality to the surrounding islands in culture, and norms?  Karp used a sample different from the original study and this disimilarities may have led to the variance in the findings. May be in the surrounding Islands they have sacred traditions that leaves child rearing to parents only and these samples was conflated with a Tertian sample that does not object to communual child rearing practices. Definitely, the surrounding islands would have vitiated the results of the study. Dr. Karp has to provide evidence that these islands have similar cultures and norms to bolster claim of plausibility, before the reccomendation of his colleagues can be enacted.

Furthermore, he has to show that children talking more of their parents means that they don’t learn morals from other adults. While kids may be more cogenial with their parents, they may also have learnt some particular mores from other parents. The author has to show that the kids were never away from their parents daily or did not visit friends who had parents. Also, Dr. Karp has to show that the questions he asked these kids where answered objectively, as these kids may not have an idea of what they gain when the socialize with other families.

Finally, he has to disambiguate the phrase ‘much more time talking of their parents’ as it can evince that these kids still spent some trifling amount of time talking to other adults. This evidence would undermine Dr. Karp’s argument and the reccomendation.

In summary, this reccomendation may not be accepted if Dr. Karp does not give cogent answers to issues just raised.