Yes, overall, you need to be more specific and these are operational definitions but they are also theories - most likely based on experiments and/or statistical analysis. So, define terms and try to give the "so what" or the "why" in your hypothesis. You need the "why". Otherwise, who's going to be interested. "X" causes "Y" because . . .
1) Smoking is bad for people's health. No one would argue this point, so the statement itself is kind of obvious, like saying "war is bad." But even though it is generally agreed upon, it still needs to be more specific to have any kind of objective or scientific validity: i.e. "Smoking has been shown to greatly increase the risk for 'X' and 'Y.'
2) Likewise with this one: The problems associated with poverty affect all aspects of people's lives. Poverty does not "cause crime." - this implies that poverty causes all crime. Try something like, "Certain crimes have a correlation and maybe causation with respect to poverty because . . . ."
3) I just have a difference of opinion with this one: I think children who watch too much television tend to be passive, maybe hyperactive, but less engaged and focused when it comes to more active things like reading.
4) I agree with the first poster. Always define your terms first. What is spousal abuse. How much alcohol consumption? And what does 'related' mean? If it is a coincidental relation, a causal relation? A testable hypothesis: "In a statistical poll on spousal abuse, taken from a representative sample of X City, we hypothesize that at least 60% of all reported cases of spousal abuse involve some kind of alcohol consumption/abuse.
No comments:
Post a Comment