The argument concludes that firstborn children in monkeys and humans are reacting to mentally stimulations differently, this conclusion rests weakly on three primary assumptions. First, in the survey on monkeys the number of animals that were detected was eighteen which is definitely insufficient. Second, responses to prods for measuring could have another reasons such as nutrition. Finally, the author of the argument only relies on one specific hormone, cortisol, that is not reliable enough to make that comprehensive conclusion.
A broad objective survey would lead us to more impeccable consequences. Relying to 18 monkeys merely to reach that holistic conclusion is absolutely not trustworthy. Maybe, by researching on 180 monkeys the result would completely deflects in another way. Hence, the author premise for the research is basically questionable, similarly not having sufficient case-studies could ensue a fallacious result.
Clearly, addressing one of ample reason that had been researched on it recently for promulgating the traits of firstborn child is not logistically at all. The author connives abundant other alludes that are leading to provoke emotional reactions. For example, quality of the nutrition of first born child might differ from siblings and it would riposte in level of emotions, moreover, the quality of caring by parents might be disparate from others that has made firstborn children to be more attached. With regarding to, making a paramount trigger in our complex bodies for answering different activities by the author is waning the soundness of the argument result.
The other assumption made by the author to arrive at the conclusion is the wrong perception of the foment indicator. Measuring only cortisol hormone for attesting the level of excitement is not comprehending us to suitable conclusion. For, instance testosterone has been adduced as another stimulus of displaying the level of emotions in human beings, furthermore, there are bountiful traits and prods that could be observed to strengthen the argument result.
All in all, there are numerous traits in both our biological and mental aspects of our bodies that are correlating on and on together for shaping our behavior. Concerning the lack of enough and reliable premises for ratiocinating the outcome of argument, to strengthen the argument, for making the argument more augment, the author should corroborate supernumerary efficacious incentives to make the conclusion more logically. Thus, this conclusion should have been observed in other dimensions but the author relies heavily on its assumptions, perhaps too heavily.
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/story/gre-argument-essay-topic-2-outline
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 402 350
No. of Characters: 2191 1500
No. of Different Words: 208 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.478 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.45 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.935 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 184 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 143 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 109 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 71 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.333 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.589 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.444 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.302 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.537 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.057 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 232, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'deflect'
Suggestion: deflect
...180 monkeys the result would completely deflects in another way. Hence, the author premi...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 96, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...e conclusion is the wrong perception of the foment indicator. Measuring only cortisol horm...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, hence, if, may, moreover, regarding, second, similarly, so, then, thus, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2250.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 402.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.59701492537 5.12650576532 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47771567384 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02123619104 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.537313432836 0.468620217663 115% => OK
syllable_count: 690.3 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.1714499437 57.8364921388 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.0 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3333333333 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 5.70786347227 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.045793716884 0.218282227539 21% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0163927594192 0.0743258471296 22% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0188570197109 0.0701772020484 27% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0299203474546 0.128457276422 23% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0200805149416 0.0628817314937 32% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 14.3799401198 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.5 12.5979740519 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.87 8.32208582834 119% => OK
difficult_words: 131.0 98.500998004 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.