GRE寫作官方題庫高頻ARGUMENT題目滿分范文分享：research on chlidren in Tertia island

　　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.

　　【滿分范文賞析】

　　It might seem logical, at first glance, to agree with the argument in Dr. Karp’s article that children in Tertia are actually raised by their biological parents (and perhaps even, by implication, that an observation-centered approach to anthropological study is less valid than an interview-centered one). However, in order to fully evaluate this argument, an audience should be provided with additional evidence.

　　【本段結(jié)構(gòu)】本段采用了簡明的Argument開頭段結(jié)構(gòu)，即C—F的開頭結(jié)構(gòu)。段落首先概括原文的Conclusion，接下來給出開頭段到正文段的過渡句，指出原文的Flaw，即其應(yīng)提供額外的Evidence才能讓觀眾對該Argument進(jìn)行充分評價。

　　【本段功能】本段作為Argument開頭段，具體功能就在于發(fā)起攻擊并概括原文的結(jié)論，即Tertia的孩子們的確是由他們的親生父母所撫養(yǎng)的，并且以觀察為中心的人類學(xué)研究方法不如以面試為中心的研究方法有效。本段對原文結(jié)論的歸納為正文段中即將進(jìn)行的具體攻擊作鋪墊。

　　The audience should know, before deciding conclusively about the appropriate methodology for further study, if Tertia has changed significantly in the past 20 years. Dr. Field conducted his observational study 20 years ago and it is possible that Tertia has changed significantly since then. For example, if we had evidence suggesting that, since the original study, foreigners had settled on the island and introduced a new element that affected child rearing in Tertia, it would certainly weaken Dr. Karp’s argument. In that case, the original study could have been accurate and Dr. Karp’s study could be correct.

　　【本段結(jié)構(gòu)】本段采用了標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的Argument正文段結(jié)構(gòu)，即：概括第一個邏輯錯誤的錯誤類型和其在原文中出現(xiàn)的位置，接下來給出合理的理由和他因來反駁原文。

　　【本段功能】本段作為正文第一段，攻擊原文中出現(xiàn)的第一個重要邏輯錯誤——(時間上的)錯誤類比。在對合適的研究方法做出決定性的判斷之前，觀眾應(yīng)當(dāng)被告知Tertia是否在過去的20年內(nèi)發(fā)生了顯著的變化。Field博士是在20年前開展了他的觀察性研究，而自那時起Tertia可能發(fā)生了顯著的變化。例如，我們?nèi)绻凶C據(jù)證明后來外國人在島上定居并引入了一種影響了Tertia的孩子撫養(yǎng)方式的新因素，Karp博士的論證無疑會被削弱。在這種情形下，F(xiàn)ield博士原先的研究可能是準(zhǔn)確的，Karp博士的研究也可能是正確的。

　　Further, in order to fully evaluate this claim the audience needs to learn more about the interview questions that Dr. Karp’s team used—what exactly did they ask? We don’t know, nor do we know what the children’s responses actually were. What did they say about their biological parents? The mere fact that they speak more frequently about their biological parents than they do about other adults does not mean that their biological parents had a greater role than the community did in their rearing. It would significantly undermine Dr. Karp’s argument if it turned out that the children said things like how much they missed their parents or how their parents had left them in a communal environment. Without knowing what the children said, one cannot accept the argument above without reservations.

　　【本段結(jié)構(gòu)】本段采用了標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的Argument正文段結(jié)構(gòu)，即：概括第三個邏輯錯誤的錯誤類型和其在原文中出現(xiàn)的位置，接下來給出合理的理由和他因來反駁原文。

　　【本段功能】本段作為正文第三段，攻擊原文中出現(xiàn)的第三個重要邏輯錯誤——調(diào)查類錯誤。為充分評價原文中的論斷，觀眾需要就Karp博士所采用的面試問題獲得更多的信息。我們既不知道他們所問問題的具體內(nèi)容，也不知道孩子們的具體答案。僅僅是孩子們更經(jīng)常談到他們的親生父母這一事實并不意味著他們的親生父母在撫養(yǎng)他們的過程中比社區(qū)占有更主要的角色。如果事實證明孩子們經(jīng)常說一些諸如他們多么想念父母或者他們的父母是如何把他們留在了一個集體環(huán)境中的事情的話，Karp博士的論證將被顯著地削弱。在不知道孩子們究竟說了些什么的情況下，我們不能無保留地接受原文的論證。

　　It is slightly more difficult to discuss the evidence we might need in order to evaluate the more interesting claims in Dr. Karp’s article, namely his extension of the results of his study to a conclusion that interview-centered methods are inherently more valid than observational-centered approaches in the case of study in the group of islands including Tertia. In order to fully evaluate this claim one would require more examples of interview-based and observation-based anthropological studies and we would also need to look into different study designs. Perhaps Dr. Field did not conduct an effective observational study, but other observational approaches could be effective. In order to make such grandiose claims, Dr. Karp really needs to provide a lot of additional evidence (ideally a meta-analysis of hundreds of anthropological studies).

　　【本段結(jié)構(gòu)】本段采用了標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的Argument正文段結(jié)構(gòu)，即：概括第四個邏輯錯誤的錯誤類型和其在原文中出現(xiàn)的位置，接下來給出合理的理由和他因來反駁原文。

　　【本段功能】本段作為正文第四段，攻擊原文中出現(xiàn)的第四個重要邏輯錯誤——外推類錯誤。在Karp博士的文章中，他將自己的研究結(jié)果推廣到了以面試為中心的研究方法比以觀察為中心的研究方法在研究包括Tertia在內(nèi)的一組島嶼時本質(zhì)上更有效這一結(jié)論。為充分評價這一論斷，我們需要更多的以面試為中心的人類學(xué)研究和以觀察為中心的人類學(xué)研究的例子，并且我們還需要考察不同的研究設(shè)計。或許Field博士并未開展一項有效的觀察式研究，而其它的觀察式研究均可能是有效的。為了做出如此宏大的論斷，Karp博士實在需要提供很多額外的證據(jù)。