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 entire village rat

In his article, Dr. Karp claims that children in Teria are reared by biological parents rather than the entire Villlage, and conclude that observation-centered approach to studying cultures in not as valid as the interview-centered approach. However, the Dr. Karp does not provide sufficient evidence when developing his argument. In order to fully evaluate the soundness of his argument, more additional evidence is required.

The first piece of evidence that we would need in order to evaluate this claim/argument is information about whether or not the Teria valliage has changed in case of education or family tradition during the past twenty years. Dr. Field’s research was conducted twenty years early than Dr. Karp’s, it is possible the Teria has changed sigificanyly since then. For example, if we had evidence that Teria Village, in recent years, has embrace morden society family structure where children are raised by biological parents, it would certainly weaken Dr. Karp’s argument. Since in that case, Dr. Field’s approach is not wrong, and the different result come from the object they researched.

Another important piece of evidence that can help us assess this claim involves the information of the children that are interviewed in Dr. Karp’s research. In the article, it only mentions that the children are “living in the group of islands that includes Tertia”. If we learn that there are actually no children come from island Tertia, it would significantly weaken Dr. Karp’s argument. In that case, it is possible that family tradition in Teria is differe from villages in other island. On the other hand, if Dr. Karp prove that his interviewees include indeed many children from Tertia, then the argument is assuredly strengthened.

Evidence about more formal comparison between observation-certered and interview-centered is also needed to fully evaluate author’s argument. Even if, like the author claims, Dr. Field’s investigation is not as valid as his. It is not enough to conclude that all interview-centered approaches are more accurate, since this is just on example. Since . Although Dr. Field is not able to develop a valid conclusion using obersivation-centered approach, that does not mean other obersivational approaches are alse invalid. To fully support this claim, the author need provide more data or paper to develop a comprehensive comparsion about these two approaches.

In sum, more evidence is certainly required to evaluate the Dr. Karp’s argument. Depends on the evidence, this argument can be quite convincing or entirely false.