PROMPT: 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 argument recommends that there is a direct link between the birth order of an individual's level of stimulation. The argument is flawed as it is based on many unwarranted assumption. Primarily the argument's basis for the aforementioned conclusion is a scientific study on the monkeys. However, this conclusion is not justified as there is no firm grounding that observations of this study are applicable to humans as well. The argument also have causal flaw and unjustified comparison.
Firstly, the argument assumes that the level of stimulation is only dependent on the harmone cortisol. This might not be true as there is no evidence provided by the argument to support this assumption. Level of stimulation might be dependent on some other harmones. All the bodily processes are quite convoluted, hence giving due credit for stimulation to cortisol exclusively is not justifiable. The argument would have been stronger if it had given sufficient evidence to corroborate a link between cortisol production in the body and stimulation observed.
Secondaly, even if we assume that cortisol is the only cause of stimulation the argument leaves many other questions unanswered. It assumes that the observations made in monkies can be directly applied to humans. Which is generalising without sufficient information. The argument does not provide any similarity between bodily functions of human and the breed of monkies on which the scientific study was conducted to support the applicabily of the research to humans. If the argument had provided scientific or theoretical evidence to corroborate the similarities in stimulation mechanism in monkies and humans we would have been in the better position to evaluate this argument.
Finally, the argument also makes unjustified comparison between various scenarios of stimulation. The situations 'encounter with an unfamiliar monkey' for monkies and 'return of a parent after an absence' for humans is compared without any proof to warrant this comparison. Furthermore, response generation system of both humans and monkies works differently and in a complex manner. Thus, to make a convincing case the argument need to give information about how these two situations produce similar stimulation in these two species.
Therefore, on the bases of the argument given above we can conclude that the argument does not provide any evidence for the underlying assumptions of the study on monkies being applicable to humans. Also, there is no proof to provide the direct link and similarities between the various scenerios mentioned in the argument. Thus, the argument in the absence of data to support the assumtions is not based on a firm grounding and fails to be convincing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 201, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...y unwarranted assumption. Primarily the arguments basis for the aforementioned conclusion...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 213, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Which” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...kies can be directly applied to humans. Which is generalising without sufficient info...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 359, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a complex manner" with adverb for "complex"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...umans and monkies works differently and in a complex manner. Thus, to make a convincing case the ar...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, second, so, therefore, thus, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 38.0 16.3942115768 232% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2296.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 428.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36448598131 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.548423998 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08000647138 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.434579439252 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 746.1 705.55239521 106% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.4108355478 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.363636364 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4545454545 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.40909090909 5.70786347227 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.0940814801952 0.218282227539 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0338949237856 0.0743258471296 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0471800718403 0.0701772020484 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0636361937374 0.128457276422 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0400274257881 0.0628817314937 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 98.500998004 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.