The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist.“Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village r

The author of the argument has failed to convince us that Dr. Field’s conclusion about the method of rearing for the children of Tertia village is not valid also Dr. Field’s approaches which is based on observation methods is invalid to somehow. Even if the claim may seem logical at first glance, the article lacks the correct exemplification and illustrative information to prove this claim. The argument, as it stands, is based on questionable assumptions and a faulty line of reasoning, a fact that render it over simplistic and unconvincing. In what follows, some evidences, which are necessary to admit the conclusion are expressed and illustrated.

Firstly, as Dr. Karp’s result is based on interviews from the children the method and the policy regarding the proof of the interviews shall be presented. For instance, how many children were interviewed, what was the question, is there any support to prove the children were trustworthy enough to be accept their answers as truth etc.

Secondly, the writer claims that for the sake of just one study, which is under questioned to somehow, all the theory of observational method for studying cultures is completely wrong. However, the question here is “Is that right that to exclude one method of studying cultures from all other subjects related to culture?” “Can we consider just this result as the representative of all the other topics relate to studying cultures?” of course, not and to solve this problem Dr. Karp has to consider some other subject before, make any decision about observation-centered and interview-centered methods.

Lastly, the writer said that Dr. Field’s study was done twenty years ago and the result from it, was different from his result. The question that comes to mind is “Is any proof to accept that Tertia island’s culture was fixed in this period?” Maybe the method of rearing children has been changed during the period of twenty years, definitely the children who were observed at that time by Dr. Field were not those who took part in Dr. Karp interview therefore, the method might have changed from time to time.

To wrap up, based on the reasons discussed above, the lack in some evidences, reduced the robustness of the conclusion expressed. If the author includes all the aforementioned premises in the article, it would have been more thorough and convincing.