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

According to the passage, the author concludes that an interview based approach in collecting data on children in Tertia should be used for future studies. This decision is based solely on the fact that one method derives at a different result from the other twenty years apart. In other words, the author implies that the interview-based method draws more accurate results as opposed to the observation-oriented method which was conducted twenty years ago. This insubstantial assumption coupled with a number of other flaws in logic and lack of evidence makes the argument presented in the passage significantly weak. Certain questions need to be answered so that one may decide whether the author's recommendation is reasonable.

For instances, it would help to measure the validity of this argument if the readers knew what type of questions were asked during the interview with the children. Despite the fact that the children spend more time talking about their biological parents rather than other adults, if the questionnaire is irrelevant to the topic of child-rearing, the argument would lose validity. It is imperative that the interview is constructed in favor of retrieving not only accurate but also relevant information.

The other equally important question to ask is to know whether the children were the only subjects to be interviewed. The reason why this is necessary to ask is because the interview method would be more reliable if adults were also questioned. Children may give over-dramatized anecdotes of their experiences which would give biased or faulty data. Therefore the input of the accounts provided by adults would help make the concluding results more substantial.

Finally, knowing whether an observation-based method that was conducted in the present gives different results from interview-oriented approach is crucial to be able to decide whether this argument makes sense. The author fails to acknowledge the fact that twenty years can significantly alter the traditional ways of a society. If that is the case with Tertia, it should not render the observation-centered method inappropriate just because the actual anthropological behavior changed over the course of time. However, if the method still delivers different results, one can make the assumption that perhaps the other approach truly is more reliable.

In closing, given the lack of support in this passage, it is ill-advised to take the presented argument with absolute certainty. Had these aforementioned questions been explained by the author, we could begin to consider the possibility of the claim to be feasible.