The hypothesis of this experiment claimed the apterous mutation would be recessive. The results from all eight lab sections supported the hypothesis, but unfortunately the results from lab section seven did not support it. Based on the chi square analysis data from all eight lab sections, it indicated that it was probable for more than half of the total flies to inherit the wild type phenotype, while the rest would inherit the apterous phenotype. Therefore, these results (UNCLEAR REFERENT. ALL THE RESULTS OR JUST THOSE FROM OTHER THAN SECTION SEVEN?) approved ("SUPPORTED"?) the hypothesis because there was a quarter of flies that inherited the apterous phenotype, indicating it was recessive. (UNCLEAR. HOW FAR IS LESS THAN HALF FROM ONE QUARTER?)The chi square analysis results from lab section seven disapproved with ("DID NOT SUPPORT"?) the hypothesis (COMMA) because the results revealed there was more than a quarter of flies who inherited the apterous phenotype. (IS THIS DIFFERENCE STATISTICALLY SIGNFICANT?) This concluded the apterous phenotype was not recessive. ("THIS" DOES NOT COME TO ANY CONCLUSIONS. A PERSON COMES TO CONCLUSIONS. YOU COULD SAY, "IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT...")
If seven sections of eight support your hypothesis, and one does not, why do you go with a conclusion that rejects the hypothesis? Can you cite your reasoning?
In the future, if nobody is available to proofread your work, you can do this yourself. After writing your material, put it aside for a day — at least several hours. (This breaks mental sets you might have that keep you from noticing problems.) Then read it aloud as if you were reading someone else's work. (Reading aloud slows down your reading, so you are less likely to skip over problems.)
If your reading goes smoothly, that is fine. However, wherever you "stumble" in your reading, other persons are likely to have a problem in reading your material. Those "stumbles" indicate areas that need revising.
Once you have made your revisions, repeat the process above. Good papers often require many drafts.
I hope this helps. Thanks for asking.
Can I get this proofread please?
The hypothesis of this experiment claimed the apterous mutation would be recessive. The results from all eight lab sections supported the hypothesis, but unfortunately the results from lab section seven did not support it. Based on the chi square analysis data from all eight lab sections, it indicated that it was probable for more than half of the total flies to inherit the wild type phenotype, while the rest would inherit the apterous phenotype. Therefore, these results approved the hypothesis because there was a quarter of flies that inherited the apterous phenotype, indicating it was recessive. The chi square analysis results from lab section seven disapproved with the hypothesis because the results revealed there was more than a quarter of flies who inherited the apterous phenotype. This concluded the apterous phenotype was not recessive.
1 answer
2 answers