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

In this argument, the writer indicates that some anthropologists recommend that conducting research via interview-centered method is a better in obtaining accurate information on Tertain child-rearing practices. The author also cites two studies carried out by Dr. Field and Dr. Karp to support the recommendation. Close scrutiny of the studies and the evidences presented in the argument reveals that they lend little creditable support to the recommendation.

Firstly of all, the argument is based on a false analogy between the two studies in that Dr. Field only studied the island of Tertia, yet Dr. Karp studied a group of islands including Tertia. Drawing any conclusion based on this false analogy renders nothing valid toward the recommendation. In fact, in research studies, the sample used in the study plays a vital role in validity of outcomes. In the above-mentioned studies, the samples used in the study are quite different. Perhaps Dr. Karp put more weight on other islands rather than Tertia, in which event comparing the results of these studies would amount to unreliable results. In short, query whether Dr. Karp studied the island of Tertia well enough must be answered in order to better assess the recommendation.

Secondly, that the children spent much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village hardly supports the recommendation, since the author overlooks the possibility that, in the interviews, maybe the interviewer asked more question regarding the children’s biological parents rather than other adults in the village, in which event the children would certainly spend more time talking about their biological parents. Without responding to this vital query whether the interviewers put same weight on the children’s biological parents and the adults in the village during their interview, I remain unconvinced.

Thirdly, the author assumes that all relevant circumstances related to Tertian child-rearing practices have remained unchanged with time. In twenty years, everything could have changed, rendering any conclusion about Tertian child-rearing practices unfair.

Finally, the conclusion that interview-centered method should be prepared in future research on this subject seems too strong and parochial. The anthropologists, actually, overlook the possibility that other methods might be superior in obtaining accurate information on Tertian child-rearing practices. Maybe a combination of the two foregoing methods serves a better function in garnering accurate information. Or maybe Dr. Field’s method with some adjustment would be significantly superior to Dr. Karp’s method. In short, we need to know about other possible methods as well as the quality of the information acquired from each of them.

In sum, the argument is logically flawed, and therefore unpersuasive. To bolster the argument, the author must firstly, elaborate on the first flaw regarding the group of island studied by Dr. Karp; secondly, provide more information about the quality of interviews and the equality in the amount of time and energy allotted to study the island of Tertia by both doctors. Finally, we need to know whether any other possible method providing more accurate information on Tertian child-rearing practices exist or not.