first bulletpoint
Building on what Kauther and Ronas said
Oen of the things we found wrong
- Does not reference the study
- Makes it hard for the readers to have access to the study themselves
- Cannot make a judgement on the information that the study provides, they cannot check the facts
- Have to rely on the way that the study is presented in the article
- Shapes their own opinion of the facts in the article
- This is a major problem in a wider context as often peoples opinions are shaped by articles leading them to believe information that is completely not true
2nd bullet point
A problem with the actual study itself is that it only tested adults around aged 26
- Major problem
- Biases the findings – not a wide range of categories of people
- Doesn’t show how chocolate affects the younger generation or the older generation
- May have different consequences in these age categories, for example it could improve the older generations eye sight even more than it was improving those aged 26 or it could improve it less,
- Invalidates the study’s conclusion that there is improvement in contrast sensitivity and visual acuity – in fact it may only do this in those adults that are aged 26
3rd bullet point
Another issue we found was the idea that it is a Single blind study
- Researchers new the aim
- Could unexpectantly bias results – for example they could use cues which would give the participants a clue into the aim of the study and to what chocolate improves there eyesight the best so they would perhaps try to perform between on that test in order to please the researchers this is an example of a demand charactertics
- Particpiants would also be able to tell the difference in taste between the different chocolates this could cause them to assume that the dark chocolate is the one that is supposed to make them see better, therefore perform better in that test – common knowledge that dark chocolate is more healthy than milk chocolate
4th bullet point
Increases blood flow that sharpens your ability to read words and numbers – haven’t been proven by the study itself
- Direct evidence is lacking for increase blood flow improvising vision specifically the ability to read words and numbers
- In this study specifically they were not measuring how blood flow increases to the eyes improving vision
