/question
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 by their own biological parents. Recently another anthropologist, Dr. Karp, visited the group of islands that includes Tertia and used the interview-centered method to study child-rearing practices. In the interviews that Dr. Karp conducted with children living in this group of islands, the children spent much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. Dr. Karp decided that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture must be invalid. Some anthropologists recommend that to obtain accurate information on Tertian child-rearing practices, future research on the subject should be conducted via the interview-centered method.


______________________________________________________________________________________________


In this statement above the anthropologists have recommended that to obtain accurate information on Tertian child-rearing practice ,future research should done via interview-centered method .Though the claim may well have merit , the recommendation presents a poorly reasoned argument based on a questionable premise and unsupported assumptions and have been based solely based the evidence the anthropologist offers , we cannot accept the argument that Dr. Fields conclusion about Tertian village is invalid .The assumptions have been discussed in paragraph to follow

The primary issue of the anthropologist lies in his unsubstantiated premise .To begin with the anthropologist have considered Dr. Fields research findings invalid .In addition to this they have depreciated the observation-centered approach to study Tertian culture and have adopted interview-centric approach .The basis of their argument lacks any legitimate evident support and render their conclusion hard to accept .

In addition to this the anthropologist made decisions without assumptions that remain unproven .The questions such as why observation centric method has flaw's for studying .Why the Dr. Fields results had flaws and Dr. Fields study is completely contrary to Dr Karp's results .It is possible that in observation centric method Dr. Field studied the behavior and daily routines of the village children
whose results might not match with the interview centric method but might be true.The authenticity of interview centric approach is also doubtful since there is no evidence given for it to be true thus it remains unanswered .The anthropologist have weaken their argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication , advantages and efficiency between interview centric method to observation centric approach.

While the author does have several key issues in is argument's premises and assumptions , it is not sufficient to say that the entire argument is without a base. The results of DR. Field were completely different from that of Dr. Karp which in turns does puts the authenticity of observation method into question .Though there are several key issues with the anthropologist reasoning at present , with further research the and clarification he could improve his argument significantly.

To conclude , the anthropologist illogical argument is based on unsupported premise and unsubstantiated assumptions that renders his conclusions invalid .If anthropologist want to change their reader's mind on the issue he would have to largely restructure their argument ,fix the flaws in their logic , clearly explicate the assumptions and provide evident support .Without these things , his poorly reasoned argument will likely to convince few people .