The thesis is based on the capability of the brain to grow. The author explains the findings of new research that compares the development of the brain and muscle. As such, the author argues that just as muscles can develop when people exercise, so does the brain develop when it practices new things. Therefore, this paper provides the reaction to the author’s main ideas based on clarity of language, the tone of voice, and logic.

clarity of language

The author expresses his findings in an understandable way to the reader. He uses a simple language that does not require expertise to understand. He begins by likening the process of development of the brain to muscles. He explains how exercising makes muscles bigger while lack of exercise makes them shrink (Kohn 1). The author describes, ‘But most people don’t know that when they practice and learn new things, parts of their brains change and get larger a lot like muscles to do when they exercise’ (Kohn 1). Although thesis later uses biological terms like cortex, nerve cell, cerebral cortex, axon, and dendrites, it is easy for the reader to relate to the changes in muscles during exercise.

The syntax of the thesis of quite confusing to the reader because of the structure, length of sentences, and arrangement of paragraphs. Being that the work is a thesis, it is expected to follow the problem-methods-results-discussion structure. However, the author does not use subheadings that reflect the content of the section. Instead, he uses prompts like,’ How do we know the brain can grow stronger, Children’s brain growth, the key to growing the brain, the real truth about “smart” and “dumb,” and what you can do to get smarter’ ( (Kohn 1-3). While the subheadings enable the reader to anticipate the content of the sections, it makes the work appear less academic. Another issue related to syntax is that the author has used quite short paragraphs. For example, the first and second paragraphs only have three sentences which are way below the range of 7-10 sentences.

Additionally, the author has not provided a definition of terms. While the author has made attempts to use a simple and readable language to the audience, he has used biological terms. Hence it would be easier for the reader to understand better the content had he defined them before introduction. Not every reader may know the meaning of terms like, ‘cortex, axon, dendrites, nerve cell, and cerebral cortex’ which have been repeatedly used in the article.

Tone of voice

The seems to be a reasonable person of goodwill because of the general objective of the thesis. Based on the evidence he has provided; it seems he is refuting the common claim that there are dumb people. He seems to be encouraging people to strive to learn new things so that the brain can develop just like muscles during physical exercises. He writes, ‘And the more a person learns, the easier it gets to learn new things-because the brain “muscles” have gotten stronger’ (Kohn 3).

The author seems to have a personal agenda because he fails to cite information, provide references and anticipate the opposing view to the argument of the thesis. While the author has mentioned scientists’ research on the topic, he has not offered his source of information. A thesis must have different sources so that the reader can understand how the author informed his argument. Also, the author has failed to provide a list of references that were used in research.

However, the author seems to understand the audience whom he is writing because he has used a simple language. The author recognizes that the reader ranges from being technical to general. Thus, he has used simple minimum biological terms and numerous non-technical terms. Therefore, while the article could be useful to technical readers, it can also be used by the general audience to gain information.

Logic

The author’s reasoning does not seem solid because the thesis neither has good examples or statistics to support the assertions nor does it testimonies from authorities. Admittedly, the author has provided evidence from two scientists’ studies on brain development in animals and children. However, he is not specific about the studies by giving the name of the researcher and the title of the researchers. By not being particular about the studies he has used to form his argument, it is hard to consider the results credible and valid. Also, the author has not provided statistics on the studies or evidence of his claims. Hence, it makes hard form foundation for future results or to be used as a point of reference. Additionally, the author does not provide testimonies from authorities to confirm his claims.

Considerations of Opposing viewpoints

Additionally, the author has not provided the possible opposition to his argument to show his objectivity in the research. The only evidence that the article has provided supports the thesis statement that the brain can develop like a muscle. For example, the author explains their whole brains were about 10% heavier than the brains of animals who lived alone without toys’ (Kohn 2). The statement relates to scientists’ research on brain development in animals.   Apart from communicating the author’s bias, lack of considerations for opposing views shows that the author has not adequately researched on the topic.

Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?