From Sudhir's experiences what do you see as the advantages of participant observation? Its at disadvantages? Do you think that doing sociological research justifies being present at beatings? At the planning of drive-by shootings?

The advantage is like the article stated "Over time, J. T. guided Sudhir into a world that few outsiders have ever known,". To put into lamen's terms Sudhir got a inside peek at what most researches look away or far back from a cage of violence, prositution and gangs. The disadvantage can be a ethical, moral case that Sudhir violated. For example, by getting involved in the action of what he was studying, he messed with the research by becoming a recipient in the study and now there's question the validity. He doesn't need to justify because he was a bystander and besides what's the best course of action when two criminal gangs decide to fight each with guns, call the police? When it had to due with beatings although I more of a moral grey area for me based on the fact that I'm just a bistander and there's no guns involved. I think the opposition's main argument is that Sudhir was reckless and he's moral compass is secrewed up

Hope it helps

Please mark me as the brainliest

Thank you

answer; the population in brazil is very diverse there are many races and ethnic groups