Tutor profile: Julia C.
Correct the paragraph below and assess the validity of its claim: While many dogs bite, scientists say that most dogs in 2005 that were reported to animal control for being aggressive were originally adopted from the pound. Therefore, so long as no one adopts puppy's from the pound, they're new pet won't be a biter!
Corrected: While many dogs bite, scientists [insert source] have determined that [replace most with a value] in 2005 that were reported to animal control [in what area] for being aggressive [subjective term] were originally adopted from the pound. Therefore, given no one adopts puppies from the pound, their new pet is less likely to be a biter. Even with grammatical errors resolved, there is still fallacy in the logic in this claim. First, without defining what aggressive behavior is considered in the study, one is unsure whether biting was included in the surveyed data or part of a different, more severe category. It is also possible that majority of biting dogs in the area were not reported, and the reported animals in question were disproportionately non-biters., further skewing the data and claim. The fact that no location or further identifying information about the study is given leads one to question the reputability of the scientists, and how comparable the culture and support relating to animal control and local pound is to the region the speaker is applying the study to. Given the claim is being proposed in modern day, one must ask whether and how the same study conducted today would differ. If these details are indeed questionable but the speaker still feels the research is worth referencing, defense and explanation is needed. Additionally, when claiming puppies from non-pound locations are less likely to bite, one needs data comparing the "aggression rate" of such a population to those from the pound. There is no information that clarifies the aggressive dogs adopted from the pound were even originally there as puppies, and whether the reported dogs were still in the care of those who adopted them. Finally, in the case that these aggressive dogs were adopted as puppies from the pound and still being cared for in a non-hostile environment, predictive data does not justify claims or certainty. The least biased of studies still have extraneous variables and a chance of supporting the null hypothesis always exists, which one defending a claim must always be willing to acknowledge or risk their own credibility.
What 19th century law historically coined the term "just noticeable difference," and how would it represent one's sense of brightness and pain differently?
Weber's Law was created to explain why and how some thresholds of perception behave differently than others. As Weber's fraction remains constant, he held that the equation would differentiate perceived brightness and perceived pain by having different JNDs, or thresholds at which once would notice pain or brightness change. These specific measures of course are subjective to individual, value of the stimuli, and a myriad of other conditions.
What is a determiner? Why are "the dog" and your friend, "Carol," both considered determiner phrases, and what theory exists to argue that they must be labeled as such?
A determiner is a part of speech that exists to specify a noun being used as a subject or object and incorporate it into the sentence. It must have quality (like gender) and quantity agreement to correctly do such specification. "The dog" has an obvious determiner, "the." Proper nouns like the name, "Carol," are claimed to have a null determiner before them, identifying the noun as proper and allowing the noun to still be encompassed in a determiner phrase. Though some argue determiner phrases could be instead considered noun phrases, X-bar theory makes determiner phrases obligatory.
needs and Julia will reply soon.