GRE argument essay tests the candidate’s analytical skills by writing an argumentative essay. This GRE analyze an argument essay - Island of Tertia talks about research conducted on child-rearing practices in the Island of Tertia. To increase GRE AWA score, candidates can practice such topics from GRE AWA practice papers.

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.

Answer:

Change is the only constant as we have heard while growing up. Every society across the world is going through a drastic change in terms of humanity, environment, habitation, and more. Speaking of change, the Island of Tertia also falls under the umbrella of transformation. Change in the island of Tertia has been observed by Dr. Field is a renowned anthropologist who has stated about Tertian children being reared by the whole village rather than solely by their parents. This observation was performed twenty years back, and we need to question the alterations made to child-rearing practices throughout these twenty years. The factors that would influence child-rearing practice in the Tertian island are visitors from across the world, television and video screening on Internet, and also numerous people leaving the island. There could have been a modification of child-rearing practices if the residents would have considered Dr. Field’s observations.

Also check:

Coming to the recent research drawn by Dr. Karp using his interview method was contrasting to what Dr. Field concluded. Dr. Karp found most children spoke about their biological parents rather than the other adults of the place. Let us for the time being, play the roles of ‘devil’s advocate’ and alter the studies. If the research conducted by Dr. Karp was carried out twenty years ago preceded by Dr. Field’s observation method, then also there would have been a noticeable difference. Does this mean that Dr. Field’s research discredits that of Dr. Karp’s?

Both of the research’s capacities are different. Dr. Field supposedly conducted his research based solely on the families of Tertia. Dr. Karp’s research was based on many groups of islands that also included Tertia. The fact that both the subjects of each researcher were completely disparate is enough to revoke one’s dominance over the other. Furthermore, Dr. Field conducted his study on the Tertian island as a whole but Dr. Karp only fixated his attention on the child-rearing practices. Since both anthropologists have attempted divergent methods of research, it is expected that the results would be unreliable.

On a closer look at both the anthropologist’s approach, we can observe that Dr. Field’s observation-based method focused on only child-rearing practices. If we infer into the additional factors studied by him, it can be stated that those practices formed a very trivial part of his whole project. Now coming to Dr. Karp’s research which was based on the interview-centered method completely disregarded the other factors. The question lies, why would two scientists proceed with their research based on these studies?

To conclude, both of these studies have so many unanswered questions and assumptions that none of them can be disregarded as proper research. They should probe deep into the study by utilizing either of the two methods applied.