#13 - Weaken

[Jkjones3789]

Hello, I identified this as a weaken question .. weakening the criticism of the second version of multicultural education. So like that is paragraph 2 and the beginning of 3 ? That is where I went to choose my answer. I see the values of ones culture should not be standards by which others are judged ... but then I saw some other info about the Western perspective and heritage so when I was down to A and D I went with D .. Probably shouldn't have. In this question and in weaken questions how to you suggest one go about weakening and not get caught up in details of the wrong answer. Why is it A and why is it not D. Thank you

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi, JK,

Here, you'd actually want to look at paragraph 4, beginning with line 39, which presents the criticisms advanced by critics of the second version of multicultural education. In this paragraph, you find the argument that "it is only by adopting the (often nonscientific) perspectives and methods of the cultures studied that real understanding can be achieved." A, which is the correct answer, weakens that statement by explaining it is impossible to adopt the perspectives and methods of a culture of which you are not a member. Does that make sense?

[Jkjones3789]

Yes it makes sense .... wow I had that viewpoint boxed off and didn't even look there .. thank you !

[reop6780]

The correct answer is A while I chose B.

First of all, I'm confused of what the question is referring to.

Is it referring to the criticism made by the author in line 32-34?

Or by the critics in the last paragraph?

Assuming that it refers to the criticism by author, how does answer A weaken his/her argument?

What the author points out is that the methods of examination are still Western even thought the second version takes neutral stance.

Is A trying to say that it is impossible to adopt the methods of a culture when you don't belong to the culture so that it is okay to use Western methods?

[David Boyle]

The correct answer is A while I chose B.

First of all, I'm confused of what the question is referring to.

Is it referring to the criticism made by the author in line 32-34?

Or by the critics in the last paragraph?

Assuming that it refers to the criticism by author, how does answer A weaken his/her argument?

What the author points out is that the methods of examination are still Western even thought the second version takes neutral stance.

Is A trying to say that it is impossible to adopt the methods of a culture when you don't belong to the culture so that it is okay to use Western methods?

Hello,

I think the question refers to the critics in the last paragraph.
Yes, answer A does seem to be saying that it is impossible to adopt the methods of a culture when you don't belong to the culture.

David

[elite097]

How does using non scientific methods translate to using perspectives and methods of a another culture? ALso can you please lay out the critic s argment clearly and how we are weakining it ?

As per me, critic s argument - use nonscientific ways instead of scientific ways, so to object to it , we want to show that they need not use nonscientific ways .

Idk what A is doing. Pls analyse other choics too

[Jeff Wren]

Hi elite097,

The argument of the critics of the second form of multicultural education is laid out in the final paragraph of the passage.

In a nutshell, these critics argue that Western societies (which are based on certain scientific values and principles such as objectivity, logic, and being empirically verifiable) cannot really understand non-Western cultures (which are based on nonscientific values such as the subjective, the intuitive, and the mystical) unless the Western societies adopt the non-scientific values of those cultures being studied.

In other words, these critics are against using Western scientific ideas and values in studying non-Western cultures that do not share these values because they believe that using Western scientific ideas and methods actually distorts the understanding of these other cultures.

The important thing to note is that these critics aren't against the Western scientific methods/values in-and-of themselves, only against using the scientific methods to study cultures that don't use the scientific methods themselves. The key point for these critics is to use the values, beliefs, methods, etc. of the culture being studied to understand it.

The final sentence of the passage summarizes their view that the only way to understand a culture is to adopt the perspectives and methods of the culture (which are often nonscientific in non-Western cultures).

Answer A states that it is impossible to adopt the perspectives of other cultures without being a member of that culture. This directly attacks the critics' argument by basically saying that we cannot adopt the perspectives of other cultures, which is what the critics are saying must be done. In other words, according to Answer A, what the critics are recommending is impossible.

Answer B just states that many non-Western cultures share similar values. This has no effect on the critics' argument because what the critics care about is the differences between Western and non-Western cultures, not the similarities or difference among non-Western cultures.

Answer C discusses how some non-Western societies use their own value system when studying other cultures. This has no effect on the critics' argument. Just because non-Western societies study other cultures in this way does not mean that it is correct.

Answer D is consistent with the critics' argument because it involves members of Western societies understanding of their culture within their culture's scientific perspective.

Answer E connects genuine understanding of another culture to appreciation of that culture, but does not address whether adopting the perspectives of the other culture are necessary to understanding it, which the key to the critics' argument.