Answer:

The author (Dr. Karp, an anthropologist) who has written the article concluded that twenty years ago, a noted anthropologist Dr.Field gave an invalid conclusion that the bringing up of the children of Tertia is fulfilled by the whole village instead of their biological parents. The author has made this deduction based on the interview-centered research conducted by his team on the group of islands that include Tertia, where the result of the research showed that children talk about their parents rather than the other person in the village. However, the author’s contention, as it currently stands, rests on three unwarranted assumptions that currently render it invalid.

First of all, are the sample size of the two research relatively comparable? In other words, have both the conducted experiments taken the equivalent sample from the Tertia? It is possible that the author has taken few participants from the Tertia compared to the other group of Islands whereas the anthropologist (Dr.Field) may have observed the large number of children from only Tertia. There is no mention of how the author distributed the interview sample and how many interviewees are there from Tertia. It can be probable that there are few children from Tertia who participated in the interview and actually given the same conclusion that was made by Dr. field, but because of the more sample size in other groups of islands, the overall survey result has shown the otherwise conclusion. Even if the author took Tertia separately for the research which did not mention in the article, there is still remained the possibility that both the anthropologists have considered a huge differentiable sample size for their research. If this is the case, then the different result from the same island is not unbelievable or astonishing. Therefore, if either of these scenarios mentioned in upward has any merit, then the conclusion drawn in the original argument is significantly weakened.

Secondly, are the questions of the interview actually able to compare the parents and the whole village effectively? In other words, is there any possibility that most of the questions are mostly related to the parents? Dr.Field observed the children of Tertia with their activity and their upbringing by the village people. Whereas, the author only has considered the interviews that are taken by his graduate students to conclude the result. So, there remained some uncertainty with the interview questions. Maybe the interviewer could not bring out other people rather than their parents in the questions in a most proper way that connected to the children's lives. Further, maybe children found the questions in a way that they impromptu refer to their parents most than other people. Also, the author prematurely assumed that the graduate have conducted the interviews efficiently which can overstate Dr. Field's observation. Without comparing the scalability of these interview questions related to the parents and the other village people, it is possible that the claim of the author may not accurate.

Thirdly, are the answers of the children really credible? Children as a sample are considered sensitive to handle because there is uncertainty about how truthful they are and how serious they have taken the matter. The author assumed that the children are credible to conclude the argument. But maybe they replied to most of the questions through their imagination without being real. Moreover, maybe they want to glorify their parents out of love without thinking about the authenticity of their answers. Also, as they are children, it is quite possible that they mostly misunderstood questions that have been asked to them. Maybe the graduate student could not able to make the children understand questions properly that can bring out the actual scenario of the result. If the above is true, then the argument does not hold water.

In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to answer the three questions above and offer more evidence (perhaps in the form of a more systematic research study), then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the argument that Dr. Field's statement is actually valid or not.