Argument Topic: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 ent

The article written by Dr. Karp aims at proving the conclusions derived by Dr. Field twenty years ago as incorrect. While it may actually be the case that Dr. Karp’s conclusions were wrong, however the reasons stated by Dr. Field do not facilitate in proving his stand. The article’s limited sample size, lack of a controlled group, and illogical correlations seem to seriously compromise with its purpose. While doing so, it also exposes few flaws in Dr. Filed’s study as well.

Twenty years ago, Dr. Field concluded that the upbringing of the children in Tertia was looked after by the entire village rather than their own biological parents. He landed on this conclusion by mere observation. Such a kind of practice is neither reliable nor plausible. Field must have taken certain surveys within a certain group of people or carried out a study for a prolonged duration. Only then he should have put forth his findings. However, as of now, Field’s observation too comes under question.

Dr. Karp refutes Field’s conclusion by stating that the children spend much more time talking about their biological parents. However, Karp's and Field’s study seem to be intangible without any connecting link. One studied about the rearing of the children while other studied about the content what the children spoke. To actually prove Field wrong, Karp should have conducted a smilar study to that of Field. His reasons behind proving Field wrong donot have any correlation and seem to be absurd.

Karp doesn’t mention the sample group on which he conducted his interview. It would have been a step towards bolstering his stand had he taken a controlled sample space for interviewing. For example, the results will be very much different of children between the age group of two to five years and those between five to ten years. Moreover, the children which Field observed might be around twenty to twenty five years old today. So the best step would have been to interview these people instead of children. Also span of twenty years is a huge gap and things change drastically. US underwent the great depression in 1930’s and after twenty years, it was back on its feet.

Along with the above flaws, the conclusion of a large group is being compared to the conclusion of a small group. Field conducted his experiment only on the kids of Tertia island. Where as Karp conducted his interviews in a group of island. This doesn't provide a strong base for comparing and landing to a conclusion. In a span of twenty years, acts like emigration and immigration might have taken place. Hence Karp must have restricted himself to the island of Tertia since Field’s conclusions were confined to the same island.

Finally, the language of the article and the overstated flaws also put the motivation of Karp under scrutiny. The probability of his attempts to belittle Field seem high. Also he brags about his practices and quotes that they are superior reliable to those undertaken by Field. Where as the truth is that he comes nowhere near in proving Field wrong.

Hence, due the the above mentioned evidences, the argument seems weak and ill-founded. However, had the author taken care of the above drawbacks, then the article would have solved its purpose. But as of now the intention of the article is dubious and its authenticity falls flat due to the discordant data provided.