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

In this argument the writer of the letter asserts that his study proves that children are talking about their biological parents than about other adults in Tertia. on the other hand , Dr. field conducted a survey and concluded that children were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological families. Furthermore , the writer notes that unlike Dr. Fields study twenty years ago, his recent study’s integrity is valid .and also he concluded that his internet centered method provide more plausible understanding of child rearing traditions.this argument defies simple logic and suffers from several critical fallacies.

To begin with , the writer mentions that his interned based method is more valid than Dr Fields method, but he provides no evidence to convince the readers. moreover, we are not informed about the scope and validity of the survey .the writer equates his study with Dr fields study which was conducted 20 years ago.on the other hand he fails to establish any correlation between two studies. the writer provides no evidenced whatsoever that the two studies are comparable about their scope, breadth and also veracity.

Secondly ,the writer cites that Dr field observations and his conclusion. however, he provides no proof for his survey.We do not know how many children were surveyed and these children of course are not the same in Dr. Fields study.Because they were not born when Dr. field was visiting the village.Also the writer does not take into other plausible causes that may result the controversial conclusion between two studies.It is impossible to pinpoint that his study is more valid and veracity of his argument is more reasonable than Dr. Fields argument only based on an interview centered method which there is no forth evidence was given.

In summary , the writer of the letter fails to establish a causal relationship between his study and Dr. Fields study.the evidences presented are extremely weak and no relevant to conclusion.perhaps the writer solely interviewed 2 children and concluded that his study is more valid.For a stronger argument the writer could provide forth evidence associated Dr. Fields observation method with his interview method.The evidence are unwarranted and also not well reasoned