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 claim suggests that the firstborn offsprings tend to produce higher levels of the hormone cortisol as compared to their younger siblings. To support the assertion, the writer of the letter states observations from monkeys and humans in stimulating situations, as well as pregnant monkeys. However, more evidence and reasoning is required to draw any conclusions from the observations, as there are many alternate explanations that could invalidate the conclusions drawn in the statement. I will present a couple of such explanations.
First of all, the environment and the time-duration of the experiments is not clear from the writer's statement. The amount of cortisol produced in the body might as well vary with age. In this case, if the offsprings of a parent were all tested at the same time, according to the writer, it would have been found out that the elder siblings produced more cortisol. However, this could have simply been because of the age difference. The explanation, that the amount of cortisol produced increases with age, would invalidate the writer's conclusion. To challenge this explanation, the writer might assert that the first-time mother monkeys also had higher levels of cortisol as compared to the mothers who had had several offsprings. Even if this is true, there is no evidence that links the levels of cortisol in the mother's body to the levels of cortisol produced by the child in later stages of life. Therefore, this observation can not be used to defend the writer's conclusion.
Further, the experiments might have been done on a homogenous group of monkeys. A group of 18 monkeys is not a large enough sample to make generalizations about all of the species. It is very well possible that the trend of levels of cortisol is only local to a single species of monkeys found in one geographical area. More extensive experiments on a heterogenous set of animals need to be conducted to draw any logical conclusions from the observations. It is in fact, a very common fallacy that happens in the scientific community. In the data science terminology, this is known as the dataset bias. This means that if the data that we are using to draw conclusions is not representative of the real world, then our results will be biased. This usually happens if the elements of the data are not independent of each other to a large extent. This is exactly the case that can be seen in the writer's observations. If all the monkeys are similar in nature, then the data is inconsistent and the results are biased. A more holistic and inclusive experiment might invalidate the observations mentioned by the writer and by association, the conclusions drawn from it.
The above explanations show that the writer's account is fallacious and should not be taken at its face value. To associate any amount of credibility to the conclusion, a lot more evidence and a more comprehensive reasoning is required. As it currently stands, the writer's conclusions can not be given any weight and should not be published in a scientific journal.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 94, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...f the experiments is not clear from the writers statement. The amount of cortisol produ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 529, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...ncreases with age, would invalidate the writers conclusion. To challenge this explanati...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 705, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: had
...cortisol as compared to the mothers who had had several offsprings. Even if this is tru...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 961, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...servation can not be used to defend the writers conclusion. Further, the experimen...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 162, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...gh sample to make generalizations about all of the species. It is very well possible that ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 846, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...endent of each other to a large extent. This is exactly the case that can be seen in...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, so, then, therefore, well, in fact, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2555.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 512.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.990234375 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75682846001 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98824742117 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.43359375 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 806.4 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.9687933001 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.2692307692 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6923076923 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.30769230769 5.70786347227 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 15.0 4.67664670659 321% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0543974842369 0.218282227539 25% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0161684144379 0.0743258471296 22% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0227894291416 0.0701772020484 32% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0390912046035 0.128457276422 30% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0105604438147 0.0628817314937 17% => 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: 11.9 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.