2. 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."
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
The author claims that one's level of stimulation is determined by the birth order. It may be true in some sense, however, there are some flaws to validate the assertion. The assumptions made by the author to support the claim should be backed up by some additional evidence.
First, the author makes a hasty generalization when providing evidence for his claim. The author provides information to support his assertion by using monkeys and humans. There is a flaw in this part that the author assumes that what monkeys and humans provide as a result of the stimulation could be taken into account in same sense. Also, in the process of letting monkeys and humans face the stimulation, monkeys encounter an unfamiliar monkey and humans face their parent. Thus, the author assumes that an unfamiliar monkey and a parent is of the same degree of a stranger. In addition, the writer consider the first-time mother and firstborn infant monkeys as of the same kind to conduct a stimulation. However, a mother and an infant has had totally different years of experience, a sheer different living condition, that could lead to a faulty conclusion.
Second, the author assumes that the 18 monkeys in the experiment are the right source to be utilized to make a conclusion. However, 18 monkeys are not a reliable material to be conducted in the test. The number 18 is not a big enough number to make a generalization over the monkeys. In addition, the 18 monkeys could share a similar characteristics as opposed to the other general monkeys. Then, the result could be based on an eccentric kind of monkeys. Also, the number of humans in the test is not mentioned. Therefore, we do not know whether the conclusion made based on humans is a reliable source.
Lastly, the author makes an extreme conclusion. The writer of the argument assumes that "relatively high" means a sheer difference. For example, in the argument, the author states that the relatively high levels of cortisol is a useful evidence to be used to make a conclusion. However, we are not informed how much high. It could be a very little bit of a higher degree that is not noticeable by the actual action exposed. Furthermore, the extreme conclusion is made which can be seen through the author choosing only the order of birth to be the cause for the increase of the activity levels. There could have been other conditions that would also raise the level of activeness.
Therefore, in order to substantiate that the birth order stimulates the level of activeness, the author should provide further evidence. The reason why monkeys and humans are treated the same to make a consistent conclusion and whether the 18 monkeys are a good representative of monkeys as a whole should be mentioned. In addition, the author could make a more firm conclusion by providing specific information on how high the cortisol becomes and checking whether there are any other sources that could have both affected the stimulation level for monkeys and human besides the birth order.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
--------------------
flaws:
When the topic is like: 'discuss one or more alternative explanations', it means it is a new GRE topic which is different to traditional GRE topics. There are no flaws, and we don't need to argue, instead, we need to give alternative explanations.
here go the explanations:
http://testbig.com/comment/16566#comment-16566
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ? out of 6
Category: ? Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 514 350
No. of Characters: 2452 1500
No. of Different Words: 197 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.761 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.77 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.673 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 184 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.037 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.076 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.741 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.311 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.492 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.122 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 335, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'characteristic'?
Suggestion: characteristic
...n, the 18 monkeys could share a similar characteristics as opposed to the other general monkeys...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 352, Rule ID: LITTLE_BIT[1]
Message: Reduce redundancy by using 'little' or 'bit'.
Suggestion: little; bit
...ormed how much high. It could be a very little bit of a higher degree that is not noticeab...
^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'besides', 'first', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'lastly', 'may', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'thus', 'for example', 'in addition', 'kind of', 'as a result']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.248686514886 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.155866900175 0.15541462614 100% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0753064798599 0.0836205057962 90% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0437828371278 0.0520304965353 84% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0122591943958 0.0272364105082 45% => OK
Prepositions: 0.106830122592 0.125424944231 85% => OK
Participles: 0.0437828371278 0.0416121511921 105% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.82701628493 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0262697022767 0.026700313972 98% => OK
Particles: 0.00175131348511 0.001811407834 97% => OK
Determiners: 0.155866900175 0.113004496875 138% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0245183887916 0.0255425247493 96% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0175131348511 0.0127820249294 137% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3042.0 2731.13054187 111% => OK
No of words: 514.0 446.07635468 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.91828793774 6.12365571057 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.76146701107 4.57801047555 104% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.371595330739 0.378187486979 98% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.260700389105 0.287650121315 91% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.173151750973 0.208842608468 83% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.118677042802 0.135150697306 88% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82701628493 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 207.018472906 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.410505836576 0.469332199767 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 46.8151110388 52.1807786196 90% => OK
How many sentences: 27.0 20.039408867 135% => OK
Sentence length: 19.037037037 23.2022227129 82% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.2739382468 57.7814097925 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.666666667 141.986410481 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.037037037 23.2022227129 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.62962962963 0.724660767414 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 45.1070759475 51.9672348444 87% => OK
Elegance: 1.88429752066 1.8405768891 102% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.503731920566 0.441005458295 114% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.150468399066 0.135418324435 111% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.081636429725 0.0829849096947 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.563866855373 0.58762219726 96% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.155681975176 0.147661913831 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.220789594791 0.193483328276 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.102256545941 0.0970749176394 105% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.502212215659 0.42659136922 118% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0644367969143 0.0774707102158 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.379625397986 0.312017818177 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0490642065893 0.0698173142475 70% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.33743842365 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.82512315271 207% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 11.0 6.46551724138 170% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 6.0 2.82389162562 212% => OK
Total topic words: 20.0 14.657635468 136% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.