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 claims here that an interview-centered approach establishes a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions in culture of Tertia and other islands, as compared to the observation- centered approach followed by Dr. Field. Stated in this way the argument reveals several instances of poor reasoning. To justify his argument the author cites the various interviews conducted with the village children of Tertia, who talked more about their parents than the other village people, and thus reasons that Dr. Field’s conclusion about children being reared by an entire village is invalid. However careful scrutiny reveals that this provides inadequate support to the author’s overall conclusion. Thus it can be stated that the argument is unsubstantiated.

Firstly, the argument readily assumes that the author’s study can be directly compared to that carried out by Dr. Field. However this assumption is one without any solid ground. One has to consider the fact the Dr. Field’s observations were drawn two decades prior to the author’s recent interviews. It may so happen that the child rearing traditions have since altered in Tertia, which has consequently led to differences in result. If proper evidence, in the form of results obtained from studies conducted in Tertia between this gap of twenty years, is made available, then a proper correlation can be drawn.

Secondly, the author reasons that since children spent more time talking about their biological parents in the interviews, this implies that Dr. Field’s conclusion is incorrect. However, the children may talk about their biological parents in the interviews for a variety. It is obvious that biological parents will love their children more than others in the village, indulging them in ways otherwise considered improper. Such actions might make the children make loquacious and benevolent comments about their parents. As the nature of comments made by the children regarding their true parents is not explicitly mentioned, it may also be the other way around, if the biological parents impose stricter sense of discipline, which might make a child make negative comments about them more frequently. Thus simply judging by the amount of comments made about their true parents, one cannot conclude that the child rearing traditions in Tertia are different than those observed by Dr. Field. The comment could be substantiated, if evidence is provided which shows that children explicitly stating that they spent more time residing with their biological parents.

Finally the author states that observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid. However this claim is again rather weak and unsupported by proper examples and evidence. An observation-centered approach provides a more objective view to the culture under examination, whereas interviews provide a more subjective view. Each person may have different opinions about a particular issue, and drawing a definitive conclusion from a variety of opinions is rather difficult. The author’s statement is this respect may merit greater support, if results from some research could be shown which has a comparative analysis of the two methods, and conclusively states that the interview- based approach has greater merits.

In conclusion, it may be stated that the author’s argument remains unpersuasive, as it stands. Ii consists of too many instances of weak examples and incorrect reasoning. For better assessment of the argument, incorporating some of the studies suggested above is essential.