The GRE Argument task requires the candidate to analyze the logical soundness of the argument rather than agree or disagree with the judgment it presents. This GRE argument essay talks about Tertia Island that is going through some changes. More such topics are available in GRE writing practice papers for test-takers to practice.

Topic: The following appeared in an article written by Dr Karp, an anthropologist.

“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-centred approach to studying cultures is invalid as well. The interview-centred 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.”

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

Answer:

We all went through some life changes. Tertia Island was one of the islands going through some changes that have been observed by Dr Karp, one of the anthropologist's researches about child-rearing twenty years back. Also, the research was done by Dr Field. He was also an anthropologist. Dr Karp used the interview method and Dr Field used the observation method. According to Dr Karp, the interview method is better and accurate than the observation method. He did his research on many islands and Tertia Island was one of the islands. He took interviews of children in Tertia Island. It shows that the children living there talk about their parents from whom they were born and they are reared by their parents. They do not talk about the other adults of the village who reared them. But according to the culture, it is not proved that they are reared by the parents only or with the entire village people.

According to him, the observation method is in the favour of the village that reared the child but the interview method is against it. Because if children talk only about their parents, then the rearing by the village is invalid. The observation method by Dr Field states that the children living in Tertian Island are reared by the village people. They are not reared by solely parents. So, it can be justified by three pieces of shreds of evidence.

Also check:

Firstly, according to him, the interview method is better and more accurate than the observation method as it shows that the children living there talk about their parents from whom they were born. They do not talk about the other adults of the village who reared them. So, we cannot prove that the interview method is accurate when there is no such evidence. It is not proof that if they are talking about their parents, then their parents raise them only. According to this, the observation method is not invalid. If the interviewer asked many questions related to the child’s appearance or looks. It can’t be evidence as the child will talk about the appearance they got from the parents and the biological fact states that the child gets the gene and appearance of their parents. If a child spoke more about their parents it does not make sense that they are reared by their parents. It’s an illogical fact. Child appearance has no relation to the rearing by parents or village. So, the interview method does not prove this statement.

Also, there is no such information about these two methods - the interview method and the observation method. Also, children were observed only in the daytime and Dr Karp interviewed only and understood what the child said. According to them, there were less than twenty people on Tertia Island but what if there are 10,000 or more people on Tertia Island, the argument would be unjustified. We cannot evaluate these two approaches. Enough people are living there as samples. So, the statement does not support both methods (interview method and observation method). Also, Dr Karp researched many groups of the island which consist of Tertia too.

Thirdly, Dr Karp has done his research on various islands. The research includes Tertia Island. There is an assumption that every condition is valid on every island. So, it concludes that the interview method applying to the understanding of child-rearing culture in Tertia Island has more accuracy than the observation method of Dr Field. If we look into the factors or conditions like social, economic, and domestic conditions, we require a shred of strong evidence or proof for it to prove that every condition is the same on every island including the Tertia Island. Also, the result of Tertia Island would apply to the other islands. The assumptions are unwanted; due to this, the conclusion is in danger.

So, it concluded that assumptions are not proved as they are assuming unwantedly and they are unconvincing. If more information is displayed by the author for the above assumptions as evidence and relevant facts, then there is a possibility to prove that the interview method has more accuracy than the observation method on the understanding of child-rearing in island cultures including Tertia culture. Without information and evidence, there is no point to debate openly on the understanding of child-rearing in islands.