Before making a presumptuous assertion that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid, the evidence and logic

of the researcher should be examined from multiple perspectives with more deliberations. By interviewing children from Teritia, the researcher makes a flimsy connection between the answers giving by those children on an interview and the validity of his interview-centered method, and alleges that his/her interview-centered method will establish a more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions in the island of Tertis without examining some underlying factors which may sabotage his/her assertion substantially. First of all, in order to make inference of the entire population of a research, the sample must be representative, which requires the size of the sample to be relatively large enough compared to the size of the population. Without mentioning the sample size, which may be far from enough and can hardly represent all the inhabitants of the island of Teritia, the researcher cites his interview as a main source in making his/her assertion. It is plausible that the researcher only interview a few children who happen to be reared by their own biological parents. The researcher used those feedbacks from these children to predict all the children living on the island of Teritia, which is unreasonable. Therefore, unless we have more certain information about the sample size, any further inference obtained from this interview is questionable and unreliable. Besides the sample size, the selection procedure of the sample is also unclear. In any research or survey, a simple random sample is the most representative, which requires a simple random selection procedure. For the interview, it is highly possible that the researcher selects those children who grow up with their biological parents, which will certainly lead to the fact that all they can talk about are their biological parents. After a through scrutiny, the reliability of the sample needs to be called into question. Even though the sample is reliable, the reasoning of the researcher is fallacious. Deeming that being reared by their own biological parents as the only factor giving rise to the fact that children talk more about their own biological parents, the researcher fails to take some other possible factors into account. There is no clear evidence indicating a direct connection between them. There are other reasons will lead to the fact that children talk more about their biological parents on the interview. For example, the design of the interview may sway the result of the survey as well. In the interview, the host may ask children a lot more questions about their biological parents than about the entire village. If this is the case, it is obviously true that children will spend much more time talking about their own biological parents than about other adults in the village. Having an accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions may be of great importance to some sociological study. However, before claiming that interview-centered method is better than observation-centered approach, I suggest the researcher to conduct a more reliable survey, which takes all the aforementioned factors into account. Based on a reliable survey, we can gain accurate and valuable information to make inference about the child-rearing traditions, which will eventually prove which research approach is better and more accurate.