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 rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with

The author states that interview-centered method give more accurate results than by just observations. Apparently, many scientific researches have been successful merely by observation and recording facts. In the above argument, the author should give more details about the second method which he claims to be more successful.

Dr.Field actually saw the events, recorded them and based on his observations he concluded the result. Here, the author does not give enough details as to when these observations were made. If the observation were made long back, as time changes, people change too. Maybe during his time, children were taken care by the entire village, because like 50 years ago, a village was formed by people of same tribe ,religion, and customs and hence they were like a family. But, now times have change. Children and parents no longer live with elders, most of them have a nuclear family. Hence, Dr. Karp might have interviewed children of this generation.

Even if Dr. Karp interviewed the same set of people whom Dr. Field had observed, since it is an interview based research, it depends on what type of questions the interviewers might have asked. Here, the author does not give enough details about the type questions asked. If the questions were asked about the children's biological parents then obviously the children have spoken more about them. Dr. Field might have observed actions on various events and only then he had come to the conclusion. Since, he had watched each and everything, there is possibility that his research is true. Since the author does not provide the time gap between both the approaches it becomes difficult to decide on either of them. When, Dr. Karp did the research if he had done both the approaches than, the conclusion made by the first researcher would have been proved wrong.

Although, we should always test the observation we have made, if either of them had done both the things, that is observation and interview, then there would be a better and accurate results .

In the above argument if the author had given the periods, when these two approaches were applied and also the details of the questions asked during the interview, then there would be a better conclusion. Hence, for all the above reasons, the argument is inaccurate and needs more information.