Argument essay practice

[pooja_sr]

I wrote this argument essay as a part of my practice on writing AWA for my GRE test. Could you please evaluate this essay for me. Thanks

Given Argument :

"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.”

My essay: 

 

The number of argument gives rise to unwarranted assumptions, lacks in giving sturdy support and proper reason to study about the Tertian children.  If the argument is not strong enough to justify the assumptions made, thus make us to suspect about the argument on a whole. The argument is going to fall apart since, the assumptions seems to having no strong base.

 

The argument states that 20 years ago, noted anthropologist Dr. Feild visited Tertian island and observed that children in Tertia”. The obervation carried out by Dr.Field is very limited in the argument. It do not elaborate on his work, thus gives us no proper glimpse about his work on why. Argument is flatout which just ends up saying that Dr.Field, observed that children of the Tertian island were reared by the villagers themselves. The assumption has to be made clear about what is lacking in Dr. Field’s observation.

 

The author says that “ The most recent interviews with the children living in the group of island which also include Tertia”. The argument is loosened up by not being specific with Tertian children. We don’t know any details about what kind of questions were asked to children and there is not detailed analysis or report of the interview. 

 

 Argument states blatantly, that the Dr. Field's conclusion is invalid and therefore the observation -centered approach of studying about the culture is invalid. There is no sufficient data or proof mentioned as to  why the Field’s conclusion is invalid. We don’t know on what basis the conclusion were made and why conclusion is wrong. Perhaps, observation -centered studies couldn’t be much more elaborate compared to interview-approach studies. There is nothing in the arguments which provides a solid base to this assumption made. 

 

Finally, we don’t know anything about the interview- centered method. The author’s conclusion on the methodology is not precise about what is being asked to children. We do not know even if it was necessary for Graduate students to carry out the interview process. Without any validation on the interview reults and proper proof, it’s an overstatement to say that the results are “more accurate”. There is no substantiation on how the reults are better in understanding the child rearing tradition and other island cultures. 

 

The arguments make number of unstated assumptions which undermines the validity. The methodologies and conclusions stated in the arguments are very unclear and until addressed, falls apart. The methods adopted by the author should be briefed and detailed. It’s a mistake to mention once- for all that Dr. Field’s conclusion invalid without accurately listing out the specific reasons. Author must be able to distinguish between examining the tradition and culutre, which are two different things.