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.
In the written letter to the scientific journal editor, an argument about the level of stimulation and Cortisol produced in monkeys and humans has been elaborated. In the letter, the only factors affecting stimulus and production of Cortisol are “Birth Order” and “the number of pregnancies”. It is said that whether in humans or monkeys, first-born children and first-time mothers in stimulating situations produce more Cortisol. The argument mentioned above has some weaknesses and does not have cogent reasons to persuade us to accept the idea of the writer.
At the first glance, the writer has only brought 18 samples of monkeys to check the argument. Also, there is no figure for the samples of humans compared with monkeys. Is the number of samples enough for such research? Are the number of monkeys and humans equal? Have the samples similar features? Are the samples compatible with each other? Are they comparable? The letter had been more valid if the writer would have used clear samples.
The factors considered in the letter are born order and pregnancy time. We have to see whether or not other factors, such as sex, age and the surrounding areas affect the stimulation and level of cortisol production. If these factors have a significant impact, the argument of the writer will be strongly weakened. Also, the writer has not mentioned why he only considered firstborn children and first-time mothers. According to letter we only can guess the dominant factor which can lead to increased cortisol production is the first encounter in a stimulating situation. Even the writer has not mentioned this point whether or not this is the main factor.
Additionally, the writer has not explained whether or not the test has been done in an isolated area. If the samples have not been put in a controlled environment, the overall conclusion has been questioned. Different items, including light, sound, the existence of other partners and even emotional factors can affect the results of the test. The argument had been more compelling if the writer would have pointed out the conditions of the test.
In the test, humans are compared with monkeys, and the writer says that “Firstborn humans also produce relatively high levels of cortisol in stimulating situations (such as the return of a parent after an absence).” According to what reasons humans and monkeys have been compared? Have they the same features? Are they physically and biologically comparable? Is this comparison fundamentally correct? How many humans have been checked? This part of the letter is full of ambiguities, and there is only a concise explanation to fill the letter.
In conclusion, the argument mentioned above is weak, and the writer needs to review the letter again to correct the weak points.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 408, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had used'?
Suggestion: had used
...etter had been more valid if the writer would have used clear samples. The factors considered...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 88, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...rder and pregnancy time. We have to see whether or not other factors, such as sex, age and the...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 619, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...the writer has not mentioned this point whether or not this is the main factor. Additionally...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 44, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...itionally, the writer has not explained whether or not the test has been done in an isolated a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 397, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had pointed'?
Suggestion: had pointed
... had been more compelling if the writer would have pointed out the conditions of the test. In the...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, if, so, in conclusion, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 11.3162921348 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 33.0505617978 45% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 58.6224719101 84% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2346.0 2235.4752809 105% => OK
No of words: 457.0 442.535393258 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13347921225 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62358717085 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76986214967 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 215.323595506 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.448577680525 0.4932671777 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 719.1 704.065955056 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 13.0 4.99550561798 260% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.2370786517 143% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 23.0359550562 65% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 54.1804577096 60.3974514979 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 80.8965517241 118.986275619 68% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.7586206897 23.4991977007 67% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.79310344828 5.21951772744 34% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.83258426966 248% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.12923367779 0.243740707755 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0350953068911 0.0831039109588 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0565145210767 0.0758088955206 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.073779873126 0.150359130593 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0640321300582 0.0667264976115 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 14.1392134831 75% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 48.8420337079 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.1743820225 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.1639044944 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.97 8.38706741573 95% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.2143820225 71% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.