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 concluding that to obtain accurate information on Tertian child-rearing practices, future research on the subject needed to be conducted through the interview-centered method. There are many tempts to simply accept it. However, many hidden questions are still unanswered, as in the following paragraphs.

First, how many children did Dr. Karp interview? The anthropologist could just interview a few kids, say ten out of one thousand. It is clear that the rather low rate is 1 percent, which makes the deviation of this study could dominate. As a result, let the outcome doubted. On the other hand, if the rate is high, the consquence may be reliable.

Second, does the fact the children spent much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village confirm the claim rearing practices having been suggested by Dr. Field invalid? The children could talk to their parents more as a inclination of every kinds of animals. In spite of it, the resbonsibility of raising kids might still be laid on the whole society. They may eat togather, learn new things, or even sleep togather, with the care of some teachers picked within entire village, while their biological parents still have chances to see their beloved children every day. It still fulfills the claim of Dr. Field, in contrast to conclusion from Dr. Karp.

Third, even though the above hesitation is verified, how about the different method of research, that is difference between the observation-centered approach and the interview-centered method? Which one is more reliable? Or which one is simply plausible? What if the observation-centered approach which used by the noted anthropologist twenty years ago is more trustworthy? If it is true, then the result of Dr. Field should more likely be right, leaving the other study in doubt.

In the end, with so many question, the argument is rather weak. If questions that how many children Dr. Karp interviewed, whether the fact the children spent much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village confirms the claim rearing practices having been suggested by Dr. Field invalid, and Which the more reliable way is, the observation-centered approach or the interview-centered method are solved, it will be reinforced greatly. Therefore, the argument is hard to be accepted, without further explanation.