"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 explanations in the letter to a scientific journal have many deflects when establishing the connection between the findings and the conclusion, which led to the letter fall in unreliable. The author did not mention the situation and conditions of the experiment to the monkey, ignored the possibility that to compare the outcome of monkeys to human infants, and mistakenly mentioned in the pregnancy period, the hormone affects the first-time baby and mother as additional evidence to prove the finding.
Primarily, the monkeys which under the observation are too less to be a reliable resource supporting the finding. In normal scientific research, the sample should large enough to tolerant the err and represent enough to the point where including the major possible factors and assumptions. However, in the letter, there is no such data can convince the sample of monkeys are reliable and can be trusted in the observation. Given the idea that the 18 first-born monkeys can represent the whole groups would be rough and deflect the real findings. Besides, even had the monkey’s number is reliable and large enough, the weather and situation of the monkey’s living environment are very significant and would affect the outcome too. Monkeys living in the mountain and living in the zoo, or the research institution are very different. In this case, the mother monkeys who given the first-born baby were living in a wild environment where can attribute the alert character of the first baby monkey, and when delivering the second baby were living in an easygoing environment where never need to avoid predators therefore not as alert at the first baby. Therefore the case can be a confirmation that the living environment of mothers can change the character of their babies, instead of the sequence of giving birth.
Furthermore, the comparison of monkey and human is problematic because the living condition and physical function are very different between them. Even the monkey does share similarity when human, using the finding data to conclude human is a mistake. Instead, the human infants have many ways to explain, for example, how many of them, how much weight of them, and their gender, could be very different. Similarly, the monkey babies need to be deliberately compared in the monkey group too. Therefore, the data mentioned to a human baby cannot be trusted.
Lastly, the author mentioned the hormone level in first monkeys during in pregnancy are high therefore hint at the hormone passing to the first baby are level were completely wrong. The monkey mothers’ living condition and the gene from the monkey fathers are two factors which should reconsider.
All in all, the finding in the letter based on the observation and data of baby monkey and their monkey’s hormone connection are discredited. Without knowing the information of monkey groups in detail and introduction of the strict observation condition, the finding cannot be trusted.
Comments
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 481 350
No. of Characters: 2432 1500
No. of Different Words: 201 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.683 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.056 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.662 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 189 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 137 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 67 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.316 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.563 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.474 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.339 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.543 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.102 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 189, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
... sample should large enough to tolerant the err and represent enough to the point where...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 876, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a given'.
Suggestion: who is a given
...erent. In this case, the mother monkeys who given the first-born baby were living in a wi...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1160, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...erefore not as alert at the first baby. Therefore the case can be a confirmation that the...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, second, similarly, so, therefore, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 10.0 28.8173652695 35% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2515.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 481.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22869022869 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68313059816 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8238772308 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.444906444906 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 778.5 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.450930464 57.8364921388 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.368421053 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.3157894737 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.26315789474 5.70786347227 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.139504275713 0.218282227539 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0498637067532 0.0743258471296 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.032583496378 0.0701772020484 46% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0842466442341 0.128457276422 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0212584399654 0.0628817314937 34% => 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: 15.9 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 98.500998004 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 12.3882235529 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.