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 rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with

The author presents a case where he provides two contrasting views based on two disparage modus operandi. He finally concludes that one of the technique makes more factual conclusions based on some ,stated and unstated , assumptions. A couple of assumptions are flaws which in turn makes the conclusion specious.

The first assumption the author makes is that in twenty years there were no significant changes. He assumes that the system , rearing of the children by an entire village, which prevailed in the past is still applicable in the present. He fails to consider a scenario in which recently a new cultural systems were adopted in which children were raised only by the biological parent. This could prove that Dr Field's conclusion were valid. Moreover the conclusion that the interview-centered method is more accurate would then be baseless. Hence the author's argument hinges upon the assumption that there were no cultural changes that affected how the children were raised.

Subsequently, if the children talked more about their biological parents then it could only mean that they were raised by the biological parent and not by the whole village is the next unstated assumptions. The author doesn't provide any evidences to support this assumptions. If he had given the survey results or expounded on the type of survey questions then the assumption could have been justified. Only the unsupportable assumption can lead to the conclusion , Dr Fields observations are inaccurate. If this assumption is not made then there exist no logical reasoning that can help establish the precise conclusion that the observation-centered approach is invalid. Hence the argument is contingent on the unsustainable presupposition.

Next the author assumes that what applies to a specific case can also apply to the general case . He supposes that just because in a sole situation Dr Fields conclusion are spurious , the whole approach; observation-centered; is also fallacious. Moreover he presumes that if his conclusions are accurate in a particular case, tetra village, then his approach is faultless. This assumption is not corroborated by any evidences but the assumptions are crucial to forming the conclusion. Hence the argument is contingent on the ill-founded assumptions.

The author makes many supposition in the argument. Some of them can be justified , on the other hand few are untenable. Nevertheless they help the author in building the conclusion. If such unwarranted assumptions are not made, the author's argument falls apart. Thus though of questionable logic, the assumptions play a critical role in the argument.