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 argument in which the observation-centered approach is more valid than the interview-centered method in the anthropology seems tenable at first glance. The author makes a valid argument, one that it would be correct, if its premises were true. While his conclusion relies on the assumptions for which there is no strict and obvious evidence and it uses the terms that lack definitions.

First, the author cites that research done by Dr. Field is invalid and it prefers the method of the Dr. Krap on the culture and child-rearing practice by the groups of children from various islands. In fact it tries to reach a total result about the Terian village culture by one study done on a group of the island. It is quite possible that it doesn't be true about the Terian Island and in the interview, children of the other islands were a lot rather than Terian. The author doesn't make clear evidence on the interview. How and in what situation is it done? What are the differences and similarities between the methods done by two anthropologists? To answer these issues, the author should explain more about two methods.

Second the argument in full of the terms which doesn't have overt definitions and there are still tremendous doubts on the correct meanings of the terms. Talking on the biological parents, child-rearing practices, interview-centered method are those terms that aren't illustrated completely. The author could easily construe all the skeptic points by assembling the searching done in these cases and social evidences of the children and so on.

Finally, the argument doesn't make a strong correlation between two methods clearly, so maybe they are used in different situation and maybe in the time of the Dr. Field it was the best one. As we know after twenty years, the technology of the research has been changed and it might not be comparable two methods because of the having no common and same positions.

As a result, the author's conclusion appears to rely on the assumptions which are opaque and unsupported. He could address these issues by depicting the culture of the Island, giving more information on the society of the people, parents, and children on the islands in the time of the Dr. Field and Dr. karp.