Whether children spending time talking about their parents is indeed an

implication that they are not raised by an entire village

Whether the authors interview of childen only from Tertia contradict Dr. Fields
results
Whether Dr. Fields approach was observation-centered
Whether interview-centered approach will provide a more accurate account - what
is the metric?
While the authors claims that the children in Tertian village is indeed not a
village-raise-a-child system, his reasons for claiming that is full of unwarrented
assumptions and details that require further elaboration.
For example, the author claims that since children in Tertian village spend more
time talking about their biological parents, it must be that the biological parents
are rearing their own children, not the entire village. However, Tertian children
talking about their biological parents more does not imply that their biological
parents indeed raised them. It is possible that these children feel more connected
to their biological parents, but it may be that it is truly the entire village that is
doing the work to rear the children. If the author wishes to support his claims with
more credibility, he must include data about whether children themselves feel
that they are being raised by their biological parents, and whether their parents
believe so as well. This would give a more comprehensive view of the childrearing tradition, given that the villagers and their children respond to these
inquiries with honesty.
The author claims that his interview of children from Tertia and also from other
islands as a whole show data that children in Tertia are indeed raised by their
biological parents. However, the author is comparing a biased data, namely the
data of children from Tertia and other islands, to Dr. Fields assessment of children
in Tertia alone. The author is not giving a fair comparison, and therefore must
remove the biased data set and compare his assessment of child rearing
traditions only in Tertia alone against that of Dr. Field.
Furthermore, the author claims that his interview-centered approach will provide a
more accurate account of child-rearing traditions in Tertia and other cultures.
However, the author does not show how he will confirm his child-rearing tradition
to be correct, or what kind of metric he would use to show the extent of his
correctness. To make a more concrete claim, he needs to inform the readers of his
object criteria for assessing correctness, first by defining what a village-based
child-rearing is against parent-based child-rearing, and his method of obtaining an
objective data, not just opinionated interviews. For example, he may track
individual children and calculate how much time they spend with their biological
parents against the villagers adults, or whether children mirror their biological
parents in terms of their use of language, habits, and manners, as opposed to
mirroring the mannerisms of other adults in the village. In such areas of
assessment, the author should construct a set of objective criteria that will help
the readers understand, with as much bias removed as possible, that the children
of Tertia truly follow either the villag-based child-rearing or parent-based childrearing.
While the author may be truly correct in his assessment, the authors viewed has
proved to be either insufficiently corroborated, biased, and opinionated. If the
author wishes to improve his argument, he must provide a more comprehensive
evidence that clearly communicates his method of why and how, how his
approach is fair against other models, and also an objective-based assessment of
the child-rearing culture.