Answer:
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
