She argued that his findings were skewed because he only talked to chiefs and that therefore his understanding of adolescent female sexuality was necessarily second-hand. 

She criticised him for seeking to invalidate her findings with research from another island and one located in a different territory to boot (in the independent country of Samoa as opposed to the colony of American Samoa where she had done her research). 

She argued convincingly that his critique was invalid because it was based on research he had done more than twenty years years after her own yet failed to take account of the fact that much had changed with regard to daily life in Samoa in the meantime. 

Unfortunately, she was unable to, as by that time she had died.