GRE Prep Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
rate my argument essay
[#permalink]
23 Jul 2020, 20:24
23 Jul 2020, 20:24
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.
This argument described about the evaluation of two persons. One is Dr. Field who observed that the children in tertian village was reared by entire village rather than by their own biological parents on the contrast Dr. Karp argued that as the children living in that area reared by entire village is not valid because they talked about their biological parents.
From this argument, some questions arise and we need to evaluate before coming to the conclusion. First, we can notice that Dr. Field observation was thoroughly and entirely to the tertia island but Dr. Karp interview centered method was group wise and there was more islands which include tertia also. So, Dr. Karp should clarify whether only tertia island’s children talked about their biological parents or other islands children also talked about their own parents.
Another point is that Dr. Karp only took interview children only. Did he spoke with their parents also? It is important because adults also have their own view that also should be clarified. Also, what kind of things those children talked about their biological parents that questions need answer. Do they spend more time with their biological parents or with the island’s adults? What kind of activity they conducted with the adults?
This same question goes to Dr. Field observation also. What kind of activity did those children and adult did that he concluded that the children in tertia were reared by an entire village rather than their biological parents. Another point is that, in which period did they conducted their research? Did they research at the same period of the time in the island or in different period? How many years their research differ from each other?
By knowing this question answers we can approach to the conclusion that in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable or not.
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.
This argument described about the evaluation of two persons. One is Dr. Field who observed that the children in tertian village was reared by entire village rather than by their own biological parents on the contrast Dr. Karp argued that as the children living in that area reared by entire village is not valid because they talked about their biological parents.
From this argument, some questions arise and we need to evaluate before coming to the conclusion. First, we can notice that Dr. Field observation was thoroughly and entirely to the tertia island but Dr. Karp interview centered method was group wise and there was more islands which include tertia also. So, Dr. Karp should clarify whether only tertia island’s children talked about their biological parents or other islands children also talked about their own parents.
Another point is that Dr. Karp only took interview children only. Did he spoke with their parents also? It is important because adults also have their own view that also should be clarified. Also, what kind of things those children talked about their biological parents that questions need answer. Do they spend more time with their biological parents or with the island’s adults? What kind of activity they conducted with the adults?
This same question goes to Dr. Field observation also. What kind of activity did those children and adult did that he concluded that the children in tertia were reared by an entire village rather than their biological parents. Another point is that, in which period did they conducted their research? Did they research at the same period of the time in the island or in different period? How many years their research differ from each other?
By knowing this question answers we can approach to the conclusion that in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable or not.
gmatclubot
Re: rate my argument essay [#permalink]
01 Sep 2020, 02:47
Moderators:
