The argument presented here states facts presented in a scientific journal about a study on eighteen rhesus monkeys. It tries to establish a mapping of rhesus monkeys with human behavior. The argument presented here have many fallacies due to which it fails to establish any cogency of the statement.
Firstly, it fails to mention about who conducted this study. It could be a possibility that this study was conducted by some first year students and have not considered many factors while mapping monkeys’ cortisol level with human cortisol levels. Until and unless the study was conducted by an established group of scientists who actually major in studying behavioral patterns of monkeys as well as humans the statement cannot be qualified as true or even persuasive.
Another assumption made in the argument is when it tries to map a firstborn infant monkey cortisol level with the firstborn human. Please note in the argument, firstborn infant monkeys produce a high level of hormonal cortisol when they encounter an unfamiliar monkey. On the other hand, in humans it happens when one of their parent returns after an absence. These two simulating situations are poles apart. In monkeys’ case, there is no emotional bond with the unfamiliar monkey. It could be possibility that hormone level rises whenever they encounter an unfamiliar situation, environment or a person. Whereas in case of humans, there is a much stronger emotional bond with the parent, due to which the cortisol level rises up whenever they encounter such a situation. The two simulating situation are not similar to each other, therefore, the results of those two cannot be mapped or compared. However, this can be done if both of them are kept in a similar simulating situation, such as, what happens to their hormone level when they encounter an unfamiliar person. Such a simulating situation will be able to produce a much determinable result.
Other assumption made here is related to the younger sibling. In case of rhesus monkeys, it is mentioned that 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. However, in case of humans there is no such information about the younger siblings. The information about them is either ignored or omitted. There is a possibility that in humans, younger siblings also produce same level of cortisol hormones as the firstborn and therefore, the result could be contradictory to the rhesus monkeys. If such an information is presented, then the argument will yield a much confirmatory theory about both of them.
Therefore, from the assumptions presented it can be inferred that argument lacks many definite facts and contains many fallacies. It does not consider certain factors, which could cause discrepancy in the argument and completely alter the results of studies. If any of the assumptions come true, then the argument's statement will not hold true.
- the best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competitio 50
- the best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competitio 50
- the best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competitio 50
- the best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competitio 50
- the best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competitio 50
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: 25 15
No. of Words: 486 350
No. of Characters: 2447 1500
No. of Different Words: 195 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.695 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.035 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.688 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 181 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 149 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 69 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.44 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.02 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.48 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.296 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.296 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.116 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 305, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
... of the assumptions come true, then the arguments statement will not hold true.
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, firstly, however, if, so, then, therefore, well, whereas, while, in fact, such as, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2515.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 486.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17489711934 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69525374022 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8055742302 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.434156378601 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 793.8 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.5434897798 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.6 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.44 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.4 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.297234217152 0.218282227539 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.086646663143 0.0743258471296 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.088308563778 0.0701772020484 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.14547328172 0.128457276422 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.100312392668 0.0628817314937 160% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => 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: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 98.500998004 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.