The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a scientific journal.
"A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation. The study showed that in stimulating situations (such as an encounter with an unfamiliar monkey), firstborn infant monkeys produce up to twice as much of the hormone cortisol, which primes the body for increased activity levels, as do their younger siblings. Firstborn humans also produce relatively high levels of cortisol in stimulating situations (such as the return of a parent after an absence). The study also found that during pregnancy, first-time mother monkeys had higher levels of cortisol than did those who had had several offspring."
The author of the letter cites a recent study, according to which firstborn monkeys produce more cortisol, a stimulating hormone, to conclude that there exists a causal link between birth order and the level of stimulation. Although the proposed interpretation of the findings is not implausible, there might be other, counter interpretations that must be rebuked to corroborate the author's point. It is useful to analyze the cases presented one by one.
In the first example, only eighteen monkeys were tested. The number is hardly sufficient to make any conclusion at all, since the findings may actually reflect differences on the individual level. It may turn out, for example, that the firstborn rhesus monkeys were all previously exposed to some external conditions that later affected cortisol production. Other explanations, regarding each monkey individually, cannot be ruled out, since, as noted, the pool of observations is simply to small.
The second finding may well be explained in many other ways. The fact that firstborn kids produced more cortisol when their parents returned after an absence, may indicate that they are used to get more attention than their younger siblings, simply because they were the first to be born to their parents. Such environmental factors were shown to have lasting impact on individuals' behaviour, and should thus be considered.
As for the third example, the author's interpretation seems the most unwarranted, to say the least. The fact that first-time mothers had higher levels of cortisol tells us nothing about the cortisol levels of their offspring. One may alternatively assume that the experience of pregnancy is stressing, especially in the first time. This clearly has nothing to do with the expected cortisol production of the firstborn monkeys.
The three scientific findings cited in the letter may be more loosely related than the author seems to think. In fact, each finding can be explained in a different way, casting doubt on the author's impetuous conclusion. To prove the validity of the conclusion, the author must provide additional information, which would serve to refute the alternative explanations, such as those presented above.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-01-26 | ljh5034 | 62 | view |
| 2022-09-09 | Ayanokoji69 | 56 | view |
| 2022-06-01 | sefeliz | 73 | view |
| 2021-11-15 | jane227 | 47 | view |
| 2021-11-05 | ojehparvaz | 58 | view |
- The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette a local newspaper The primary function of the Committee for a Better Oak City is to advise the city government on how to make the best use of the city s limited budget However at som 73
- Governments should offer free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition 74
- All too often companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees such consultants would be unnecessary 66
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the owner of Jupiter Caf a small local coffee shop in the downtown area of a small American city We must reduce overhead here at the caf Instead of opening at 6 a m on weekdays we will now open at 8 a m On weeke 80
- The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals In a controlled laboratory study of liquid hand soaps a concentrated solution of extra strength UltraClean hand soap produced a 40 percent greater reduction in harmful bacter 85
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 347 350
No. of Characters: 1813 1500
No. of Different Words: 199 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.316 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.225 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.832 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 132 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 107 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.412 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.153 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.706 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.307 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.556 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.05 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 187, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[5]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'used to getting'.
Suggestion: used to getting
... an absence, may indicate that they are used to get more attention than their younger sibli...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 371, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'individuals'' or 'individual's'?
Suggestion: individuals'; individual's
...rs were shown to have lasting impact on individuals behaviour, and should thus be considere...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 31, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...dered. As for the third example, the authors interpretation seems the most unwarrant...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 150, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a different way" with adverb for "different"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... In fact, each finding can be explained in a different way, casting doubt on the authors impetuous...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, first, if, may, regarding, second, so, third, thus, well, as for, for example, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 11.1786427146 18% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1868.0 2260.96107784 83% => OK
No of words: 347.0 441.139720559 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.38328530259 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31600926901 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9194520193 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.587896253602 0.468620217663 125% => OK
syllable_count: 568.8 705.55239521 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.4257920095 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.882352941 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4117647059 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.17647058824 5.70786347227 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.103029952334 0.218282227539 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0320001479495 0.0743258471296 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0452469306956 0.0701772020484 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0573645774357 0.128457276422 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0372187050737 0.0628817314937 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.22 8.32208582834 111% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.