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

Essay topics:

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.”

The article written by Dr. Karp, about abjuring D.r Field’s results, which aimed to recant the observation-centered approach, might be completely cogent; however, Dr. Karp was not able to offer a convincing argument, since it is rife with some assumptions and as the result, it might not be a compelling notion.

First of all, the author is comparing his own results of a research with Dr. Field’s one, which has been done about twenty years ago. The problem is, that the author has ignored the fact that during such long time, lots of things might change, which encompasses people’s culture. So, it might not be true to compare his results of interview-center approach which has been done recently which a 20 years ago one. As the result, refuting Dr. Field’s results, based on whatever the author mentioned in this field, would not be scientific.

Another doubt that should be more painted on, is his own method of researching. He argued that based on his research, which relies on interviews, an opposite result from Dr. Field, has appeared. But the lacuna here is, that he has not offered any statistical reports about how many children were interviewed. Whether he has just interviewed with children or also their parents, is another doubt that should be cast on. There is a possibility that those groups who were interviewed were not representative of the whole village, and also the results might not be so authentic, as he might have interviewed with not indigenous people and so, the result will not show the village’s true culture.

What is more, even if Dr. Field’s result were not reliable, it is not fair and also true to abjure the whole method of observation-centered approach. It is not scientifically true to reject a whole idea just because of one reason. Besides that, his approach is not also been guaranteed to be true, since he has mentioned that his graduate students are conducting this research, and there is a possibility, that because their knowledge and experience, as students are limited and are not complete, his own research might replete with some issues.

To wrap up, the author was not able to offer a well analyzed argument, and as the result of the fact that, his mentioned argument has some assumptions, it cannot be convincing, and cogent notion.

Votes
Average: 5 (1 vote)
Essay Categories

Comments

argument 1 -- OK

argument 2 -- not OK. It is not related to 'how many children were interviewed', but need to learn more about the interview questions that Dr. Karp’s team used. What exactly did they ask?

argument 3 -- not OK. You guess '...his approach is not also been guaranteed to be true, since he has mentioned that his graduate students are conducting this research, and there is a possibility, that because their knowledge and experience, as students are limited and are not complete'. This is not a loophole.

read the sample:
http://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-essays/gre-argumentthe-following-appeare…

Attribute Value Ideal
Score: ? out of 6
Category: ? Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 389 350
No. of Characters: 1841 1500
No. of Different Words: 173 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.441 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.733 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.789 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 122 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 89 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 59 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 33 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.786 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.52 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.643 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.387 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.632 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.192 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5