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 author has compared the strategies used by Dr. Field and Dr. Karp -to study Tertian child-rearing practices- and also the data provided by two anthropologists regarding their observations on the same. The author is too quick to jump to the recommendation that, to obtain accurate information on Tertian child-rearing practices, future research on the subject should be conducted via the interview-centered method. On careful analysis of the argument, it can be noted that the argument is rife with holes and is based on too many futile assumptions. So, the argument must be analyzed effectively before further proceedings are carried out.

Firstly, the author assumes that the observations noted by Dr. Field are incorrect and that the approach followed by him is indefinite. But, Dr. Field, being a noted anthropologist, his approach of studying the Tertian culture cannot be rendered invalid. His conclusion, based on mere observations, may not be holistically correct, but has given us a an insight about the involvement of entire village in rearing of the child, highlighting an important aspect of child-bringing practices. His hypothesis would have been strengthened if he had based his inference on valid and reliable surveys conducted among the people on the island, along with stated observations.

Secondly, the author assumes that Dr. Field's observations, which were noted twenty years ago are still applicable after such a huge time span. In such a large time span, a lot of changes undergo in society, culture of living, child-bearing practices and all the other fields. The author has not provided evidences from which it can be concluded that the child-bearing practices followed by Tertian people now are the same as they used to be 20 years ago. There may be a possibility that Dr. Field's observations were correct 20 years ago, but now they might have changed in recent years. It can be seen that Dr. Karp is too quick to decide- Dr. Field's conclusion about the Tertian village culture must be invalid.

Thirdly, the author has not provided details regarding the interview-approach followed by Dr. Karp. Without knowing the number of students interviewed by Dr. Karp or the number and type of questions asked by Dr. Karp, it is not advisable to conclude that Dr. Karp's observations are flawless. Children are fond of their parents and often they love talking more about their biological parents, which is a common fact. Based on this, it is not sagacious to come up with the conclusion that they are reared by their biological parents. Dr. Karp problematically assumes that a child can't be reared by both, biological parents and an entire village, just because he is talking more about his biological parents.

Finally, the author vaguely recommends that to obtain accurate information on Tertian child-bearing practices, future research on the subject should be conducted via interview-centered method. Without the availability of the above mentioned data, it is not convincing to refrain from using the observation-centered approach. Though the argument might seem compelling at first, it is not cogent due to insufficiency of data provided and several groundless assumptions make it invalid.