Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia. Using an observation-centered approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than

The author of the argument has failed to convince us that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture and observation-centered approach is invalid and that Dr. Karp's team will establish a much more accurate understanding of the aforementioned village's culture with the interview-centered method. The argument, as it stands, is based on a questionable assumptions and a faulty line of reasoning, a fact which renders it over-simplistic and unconvincing.

To begin with, the author assumes that the fact that Tertian children spend much more time talking about their biological parents contradicts Dr. Field's conclusion that children were raised by the entire village. However, these two facts can coexist without necessarily canceling each other out. The twenty years of time difference may be a significant factor in reaching out different but both valid conclusions. The author does not provide any additional evidence that the culture of Tertian village has not substantially changed over the last two decades. This in turn, opens the possibility that factors such as immigration or outer cultural interaction, especially with the western culture, may be responsible for the different conclusions. Hence, the claim that the interview-centered method is better than observation-centered method is not concrete.

Next, the argument assumes that the sample of islands is representative. As the author states, Dr. Field's interviews were performed in the group of islands, which includes the Tertia island, a fact that cannot be disregarded in reaching out a concrete conclusion. The author does not provide any additional information on the group size or the percentage of Tertia population to total population, whether villages share a similar culture or if there is any kind of strong cultural correlation among these islands at all. Dr. Field's conclusion may still be valid if the specific island of Tertia has the smallest number of villagers compared to the rest of the islands in the group. Furthermore, the group of islands may sustain a vast amount of different cultures that cannot interact with each other due to natural impediments like naval distance or sea related traveling hindrances.

Last of all, the author's speculative conclusion that his team of graduate students in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions can be easily rebuked. The data that the team is supposed to generate in the near future, may introduce new contradictions that cannot be understood only within an interview-centered frame and may suggest the need for introduction of other research techniques, including the observation-centered approach. in addition, the resulting data might completely reconcile with Dr. Field's conclusion that children in Tertia are indeed reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents.

To sum up, based on unsubstantiated assumptions and poor evidence, the arguer's reasoning does not provide concrete support for his/her conclusion. If the argument had included, apart from the author's frivolous future estimation on the anticipated data, more information about how the Tertia's village culture has changed over the last two decades, how large the group of islands is and how the islands correlate with the Tertian culture, it would have been more thorough and convincing.