Argument written by Dr. Karp

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 children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia show that these children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. This research of mine proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is invalid and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid as well. The interview-centered method that my team of graduate students is currently using in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures.

The Dr. Karp’s argument can be misleading since he doesn’t provide what he understands on rearing someone, how Dr’ Field did his observations and what Dr. Karp’s surveys are concrently, we might fall in fallacies who easilly we can avoid if we’re willling to definite the matters.

Oxford dictionary definites “rear” as bring up and care a child so if you’re talking a lot with someone he or she doesn’t become onto your biological parents and it doesn’t follow a relation of dependency as “rear”. The argument had morphed into quite weak — it’s possible children enjoy talking with their biological parents but who really provide them money and assistence be other adults in the village.

Dr. Karp would likely to apply interview-centered method because it establish an inductive reasoning. “One works, another must work”. But the evidence is limited to drawn such conclusions.