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 study discussed by the author tries to prove that an animal’s individual capacity to react to a stimulus is affected by its birth order. Author has given several experiments as the evidence to prove his claim, but I think his argument is rife with assumptions and loopholes that is hindering him to make a cogent case for himself. There are several plausible explanations which if proved true, can make the very basis of argument a fallacy.
As we all know, the endocrine and exocrine systems that control the release and quantity of harmones in our body, secretes them in a very small quantity, in the order of milli to micro grams. Therefore, it is required to have a very sophisticated and accurate technology to measure these harmones’ quantity. A small error in guaging this can lead to a fairly distint conclusion to the experiment. Given a very high chances of these errors in measurement, these results could sway in the very opposite direction with small changes in values. Hence, it would be prudent for author to give the experiment values and the error rates within which these values were measured. Given a very less error rates will be a effective proof to substantiate the argument.
Furthermore, the thesis talks about the various situations that acted as stimuli for the monkeys. Since, there are no further details about these situations, it is possible that these situations were not similar enough. They might have been triggered at different point on time of the day. For example, for any creature be it monkey, an encounter with any dangerous situation or sense of presence of an enemy might produce more amount of the cortisol harmone during day time when he is more energetic. While during night or very early morning, body demands more rest and lacks vigor and mobility and as a result it may find difficulty in producing the harmone in that quantity.
Moreover, another question that comes my to mind is, were these monkeys really kept in a restricted enviornment ? There is no proof of how the scientists ensured that the birth order they are assuming is correct. If mother monkey’s pregnancy was not the first one, then whole foundation of the claim will be falsified and hence the argument itself will be falsified. Also, there has been no relation made between the order of birth of infants and their father, male monkeys. It is possible for male monkeys and their age to affect the child’s metabolism and its capacity to react to the stimuli.
In addition, there has been a direct association made, from the results of the experiments on monkeys, with humans. In fact, humans are very different than monkeys in general. The organs and organs system that governs the metabolism for humans are much more advanced than that of their monkey ancesstors. So, making any conclusions on the birth order of human infants and their capacity to react to stimuli will be very naive, without giving any details evidences for it.
In conclusion, there are several unstated assumptions taken by the author’s argument, and some plausible explanation if proved to be true, would weaken the very foundation of the claims. Therefore, I would advise author to investigate and provide more evidences for plausible explantaions to the assumptions. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to persuade the editor of the journal to accpet the study and its validity.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 388, Rule ID: IF_IS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
...re several plausible explanations which if proved true, can make the very basis of...
^^
Line 3, column 421, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'chance'?
Suggestion: chance
...on to the experiment. Given a very high chances of these errors in measurement, these r...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 714, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
.... Given a very less error rates will be a effective proof to substantiate the arg...
^
Line 9, column 152, Rule ID: RATHER_THEN[2]
Message: Did you mean 'different 'from''? 'Different than' is often considered colloquial style.
Suggestion: from
...ans. In fact, humans are very different than monkeys in general. The organs and orga...
^^^^
Line 11, column 203, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ery foundation of the claims. Therefore, I would advise author to investigate and...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'really', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'while', 'for example', 'i think', 'in addition', 'in conclusion', 'in fact', 'in general', 'as a result']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.242236024845 0.25644967241 94% => OK
Verbs: 0.141304347826 0.15541462614 91% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0776397515528 0.0836205057962 93% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0434782608696 0.0520304965353 84% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0465838509317 0.0272364105082 171% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.114906832298 0.125424944231 92% => OK
Participles: 0.0326086956522 0.0416121511921 78% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.74018295867 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0357142857143 0.026700313972 134% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.114906832298 0.113004496875 102% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0217391304348 0.0255425247493 85% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0124223602484 0.0127820249294 97% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3410.0 2731.13054187 125% => OK
No of words: 570.0 446.07635468 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.98245614035 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.88617158649 4.57801047555 107% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.340350877193 0.378187486979 90% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.270175438596 0.287650121315 94% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.194736842105 0.208842608468 93% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.128070175439 0.135150697306 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74018295867 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Unique words: 283.0 207.018472906 137% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.49649122807 0.469332199767 106% => OK
Word variations: 60.6263438458 52.1807786196 116% => OK
How many sentences: 26.0 20.039408867 130% => OK
Sentence length: 21.9230769231 23.2022227129 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.8201741001 57.7814097925 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.153846154 141.986410481 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9230769231 23.2022227129 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.769230769231 0.724660767414 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 48.9406207827 51.9672348444 94% => OK
Elegance: 1.68456375839 1.8405768891 92% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.471363681751 0.441005458295 107% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.127298512701 0.135418324435 94% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0656290307297 0.0829849096947 79% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.522007778222 0.58762219726 89% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.122279474269 0.147661913831 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.180407158204 0.193483328276 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0873391642975 0.0970749176394 90% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.360129121402 0.42659136922 84% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0486185723266 0.0774707102158 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.323152263555 0.312017818177 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0328399078952 0.0698173142475 47% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.87684729064 204% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.82512315271 145% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 6.46551724138 46% => OK
Negative topic words: 10.0 5.36822660099 186% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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: This is not the final score. 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.