■ Direction You have 20 minutes to plan and write your response. You response will be judge on the basis of The quality of writing and on how well your response presents the points in the lecture and the relationship to the reading passage. Typically, an effective response will be 150 to 225 words.
■ Question Summarize the points made in the lecture you just heard, explaining how they cast doubt on the points made in the reading
| |
|
▶ Topic :
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. | |
|
▶ Your Answer :
According to the article, the
author claims that observation-centered approach to studying a certain culture
and what he concluded need to be revised. Observation-centered method concluded
that children in the village were reared by an entire tribe rather than just
biological parents. However, he/she has three assumptions that might mislead
readers.
First of all, the author argues
that as children in the town spent more time talking about their biological parent,
it means that they were reared solely by their parents, not by an entire
village. However, the author needs to articulate more about the statement as it
might be faulty. Readers might question that what a relationship between
talking and rearing is. Therefore, to solidify his/her argument, the author
needs to show how they are closely related, otherwise the statement could be
weakened.
Secondly, the author mentions
observation-centered approach is not valid which Dr. Karp proved to be correct.
However, the author is required to cite why it is incorrect. The fact that Dr.
Karp decided Dr. Field’s conclusion is invalid might need to be more elaborated
as it has almost no logic and explanation. In order to be more persuasive, the
author should mention why there is only one approach works.
Moreover, the author maintains that
some anthropologists recommending interview-centered method for future
researches. According to the lines of his/her argument, the author mentions a
questionable statement. Prevailing theory sometimes work all the time, but
there are cases that such a great theory cannot apply. To be more specific, the author has to prove
why interview-centered approach is the single method that must work in the
research rather the other one.
In conclusion, there are couple of
questionable statements in the article that readers cannot agree with. The
author needs to strengthen that why talking more about parents is related to
the amount of time devoted for rearing, why observation approach is not a valid
theory, and why some researchers generally prefer to use one method than others
and why it should work in this case. | |
쓰다가 제가 제 생각을 어렵게 만들어버려서 망한듯..
30분에 겨우 맞추긴 했는데 evidences 가 참 부족하네요
Argu는 두세번만 더하고 이슈로 넘어갈까 해요.