You are on page 1of 3



Submitted by: Submitted to:

Rabe, Kent Edve Neil T. Mrs. Liza Costa
3. a. The critic was inquiring whether the observer/researcher is a poor observer or poor
judgment of the topic due to mental defect (example: psychologically distressed person,
bipolar patients, schizophrenics, etc.) , or abnormalities (example: blind, deaf, crossed-
eyed, those with brain cancer, etc.). Of course, if such mental defects or abnormalities
are present, the observer’s judgment or findings may be altered.
b. The critic was inquiring whether the observer is in an appropriate place, time, and
situation when he made the observation. This is because if the observer is under stress,
he may have poor judgment of the happening around him.
An example would be the bus driver in the Quirino Grandstand Bus Hostage Drama.
When he was released by the hostage-taker, he blurted out to the police officials and to
the media men that everyone in the bus was dead. The observer was obviously under
stress, so he made a poor judgment and observation about what happened in the bus.
c. The critic was inquiring whether the observer is a careless observer, omitting
important information because of negligence. Also, the critic was questioning whether
the observer made an unbiased judgment or observation about his research.
d. The critic was inquiring whether the data gathered was directly observed by the
observer/researcher. There are times that the observer cannot directly observe the
data, in which case he needs to rely on someone who would do the observing. But this
may risk the accuracy of the data. Therefore, one should be careful with this, and the
accuracy of the data must be questioned.
An example would be when a volcano is near to erupt. Of course, direct observation
near a volcano of a, for example, media man would be prohibited for safety purposes.
Therefore, an expert who made the direct observation would pass the information to the
media man.
e. The critic was inquiring whether the observer is well-trained or qualified for such job.
This is due to the fact that if someone would be under qualified in such job, the gathered
information may be inaccurate or not sufficient to support whatever is in his job.

4. In a situation where the observer cannot directly observe the data, it is necessary to
take these points into consideration regarding the “intermediate observer”:
(1st paragraph)
The literal and real meaning should be considered. For modern researches, the literal
and real meanings may both mean the same; but for old texts, files, or researches, it
may not be the same. This is due to the alterations in translation or meaning, an
instance where the literal meaning and the real meaning is different from each other.
(2nd paragraph)
Also, the intermediate observer’s competency should be taken into consideration. One
should know if the observer is fit for reporting or relaying the information.
For example, a house was caught in fire. A bystander and a media man saw what
happened. When considering the validity of the information, the media man’s report
should be taken into account, because he is considered an expert in observing the
important details, as opposed to a bystander who would only describe the event
incomprehensively. Therefore, we can say that a media man is more “fit for the job” than
the bystander.