Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
04 Aug 2022, 17:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
The statement linking Dr. Field’s method with Dr. Karp’s method cannot be measurable compared, and no one should say one is better than the other because they both methods were done at different times, to different kids, and with different tools. Isn’t it 20 years enough time to change a generation of ideas in children and culture? Dr. Field got that result with his method because he thought that that was the most convenient option to test those Tertian’s children at that time, by only observation. However, there were not enough technology or studies as there are now, so Dr. Karp could use his new method because now there is more evidence that interviews have a better development use in order to evaluate and study population and cultures. This brings a more accurate result, otherwise, he would not have used it but the observation-centered approach to study.
The statement attempts to bridge that Tertian’s children who were reared by an entire village, instead that their parents, created a more affective relationship with them. In contrast to this statement, Dr. Karp concluded with his method that this is not true because his study shows that Tertian children talk more about their own biological parents than other people who could rear them. This brings us to the first point, a study done 20 years ago with another children’s generation is completely different from this new generation. Additionally, does being reared by strangers mean that these children cannot have an appreciation with for own parents so they can talk about them with other people? Does not that mean that each child may be different? There are those who prefer talking about the ones who are frequently with them, and there are others who prefer talking about the symbiological affection, which their biological parents.
In contrast to the statement, is the interview-centered method the most accurate way to study these children in the Tertian culture? It can be predictable to be amazed by a method when it looks to be the only one that gives more results at that time, as Dr. Field’s method 20 years ago. Nevertheless, if a new method in the future appears, more people and anthropologists will opt to support that because it is the newest and more developed tool to use. This is why it can be recommended that now Dr. Karp’s method is the most recommended to use because it is the more recent method applied and succeeded; however, this does not mean it will be the only method that will help to study populations and cultures in the future, there will be new advanced methods to consider and Dr. Karp’s method will be forgotten or as a background.
The statement attempts to bridge that Tertian’s children who were reared by an entire village, instead that their parents, created a more affective relationship with them. In contrast to this statement, Dr. Karp concluded with his method that this is not true because his study shows that Tertian children talk more about their own biological parents than other people who could rear them. This brings us to the first point, a study done 20 years ago with another children’s generation is completely different from this new generation. Additionally, does being reared by strangers mean that these children cannot have an appreciation with for own parents so they can talk about them with other people? Does not that mean that each child may be different? There are those who prefer talking about the ones who are frequently with them, and there are others who prefer talking about the symbiological affection, which their biological parents.
In contrast to the statement, is the interview-centered method the most accurate way to study these children in the Tertian culture? It can be predictable to be amazed by a method when it looks to be the only one that gives more results at that time, as Dr. Field’s method 20 years ago. Nevertheless, if a new method in the future appears, more people and anthropologists will opt to support that because it is the newest and more developed tool to use. This is why it can be recommended that now Dr. Karp’s method is the most recommended to use because it is the more recent method applied and succeeded; however, this does not mean it will be the only method that will help to study populations and cultures in the future, there will be new advanced methods to consider and Dr. Karp’s method will be forgotten or as a background.
Moderators:
188 posts
