Fridays

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Dr. Krap claims that the observation of Dr. Field is not valid. To support his Idea, he pointed out some new evidence which is in contrast with the last evidenceone. He believes that biological parents in Tertia island have an important rules role in engendering their children, although twenty years ago the survey asserted differently. This argument is not based on credible information and has serious flaws. First of all, Dr. krap did not use any numbers in his assertion. For making a presumption to a theory, statistics and charts play an important rules. His group should categorize their results and observation in order to find out the percents of the results of two theories. Since comparing the results of two professors is not practical in this way, his claim is untenable. The recent interview of adolescents of Tertia implys cites other evidence due tobased on Dr. Krap’s argument. However, careful examination of them, reveals that it lends little credible support to the author’s assumption. They believe, since the juveniles mentioned spoke more about their biological parents, it can be concluded that the method of raiseing the children up in the mentioned area whether has either changed or the last observation was wrong. Without establishing that all other factors affecting the upbringing of a child, the author cannot rely on this limited investigation to support his claim. There are some other possibilities for talking more about the biological parents in this time. They can relate to the type of questions, which the students researchers have asked the youths. Since we are not aware of the questionnaire, defending the new conclusion that based on it is not acceptable. On the other hand, the number of children which who were questioned is not clear. It must be showed in related relation to the whole population of the island and the more important factor, which is not considered in this argument, is the age of the ones who were interviewed. Youths in different ages depend differently on their biological parents. Perhaps they fantasy fantasize about their relationship with their parents owing to their sentimental needs. In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. It did not mention any statistics which can be compared with other information to evaluate correctly. There is no evidence about the age of children who were in the survey in order to consider the emotional factors. The questions are not accessible to examine the range of information which they have gathered. To strengthen this claim, the author needs to pay more attention to other possible factors and be clear in the evidence.