Expert answer:Read journal and Write 1-2 pages

Solved by verified expert:Very important to read the below attached for more information about the topic and requirements.


Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Expert answer:Read journal and Write 1-2 pages
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay


Unformatted Attachment Preview

Write 1-2 pages in APA format
Please avoid plagiarism
Make it as simple as you can
There will be another attachment about the journal
Here’s more info about the topic and the requirements:
You will then write a short essay, 1-2 pages in length, detailing the parts of the scientific
method discussed in your article and comparing that information to what was reported in the
news story. Each entry will be written in a logical and professional manner using the APA
template attached to the post.
The entire entry must be written IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Direct quotes of the articles are
not allowed. However, when you summarize or paraphrase something from one of the
articles you will need to provide an in-text APA reference. The guide to APA referencing is
attached to this post.
The essay must be written entirely in third person. DO NOT USE FIRST OR SECOND
PERSON. This means you cannot use the words “I”, “we”, or “you”.
Entry Content
You will be graded on the following content that combines information you obtain from
both the news story and the scientific article:
Introduction (1 paragraph)
This section identify which of the two articles was the scientific study and the subject of the
scientific study. You will also identify the problem or observation that spurred the
the hypothesis the scientists were testing. Remember that a hypothesis is a testable educated
guess. Thus, it is not appropriate to pose a question here. However, while reading your
articles, it can be helpful to ask yourself what explanation scientists tried to use to explain
their initial observation. You will then transition into the body of the journal.
Body (~1 paragraph each)
Here, you will identify the test or experiment that was performed to address the
hypothesis. You should be detailed here. It may be helpful to pull from other sources, if you
do not fully understand how the experiment was conducted. After detailing how the
experiment was done compared to how it reported in the media, you will transition into a
discussion of the results.
In this section of your entry you will identify the experimental results that the scientists
obtained. What did the scientists find after doing their experiment? Again, you can be
detailed here. After detailing the results, you will transition into the conclusion sections.
The last paragraph of the body should explain the conclusion of the study. You should
address whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected, and how the results led to that
finding. Also provide a possible new avenue of research the scientists might pursue based on
what was discovered in this study.
Evaluation (1 paragraph)
Here you will signal the end of your entry. In this section you will identify the new study
about the scientific study and discuss whether or not the news story was a representative
reporting of the scientific study. Did the news change anything or leave out something
important from the scientific study? Summarize the important content from your entry,
then you will end with a definitive final statement.
Constructing your journal entry
In addition to the criteria above, you will be graded on the quality of your writing; please
write with proper grammar, punctuation, and style. The essay will be graded using the
Dialogues of Learning Written Communication Rubric.
Cite this article as: BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.39030.675069.55 (published 1 February 2007)
IQ in childhood and vegetarianism in adulthood: 1970 British
cohort study
Catharine R Gale, Ian J Deary, Ingrid Schoon, G David Batty
Objective To examine the relation between IQ in childhood
and vegetarianism in adulthood.
Design Prospective cohort study in which IQ was assessed by
tests of mental ability at age 10 years and vegetarianism by
self-report at age 30 years.
Setting Great Britain.
Participants 8170 men and women aged 30 years participating
in the 1970 British cohort study, a national birth cohort.
Main outcome measures Self-reported vegetarianism and type
of diet followed.
Results 366 (4.5%) participants said they were vegetarian,
although 123 (33.6%) admitted eating fish or chicken.
Vegetarians were more likely to be female, to be of higher social
class (both in childhood and currently), and to have attained
higher academic or vocational qualifications, although these
socioeconomic advantages were not reflected in their income.
Higher IQ at age 10 years was associated with an increased
likelihood of being vegetarian at age 30 (odds ratio for one
standard deviation increase in childhood IQ score 1.38, 95%
confidence interval 1.24 to 1.53). IQ remained a statistically
significant predictor of being vegetarian as an adult after
adjustment for social class (both in childhood and currently),
academic or vocational qualifications, and sex (1.20, 1.06 to
1.36). Exclusion of those who said they were vegetarian but ate
fish or chicken had little effect on the strength of this
Conclusion Higher scores for IQ in childhood are associated
with an increased likelihood of being a vegetarian as an adult.
Children and adolescents who score higher on standard tests of
intelligence have a lower risk of coronary heart disease in later
life.1–3 The underlying mechanisms are still unclear. Findings that
higher intelligence is linked with a lower likelihood of starting to
smoke4 5 and a higher likelihood of giving up,6 suggest that the
ability to learn, reason, and solve problems may be important in
determining how people respond to information on risk and the
extent to which they adopt behaviours considered conducive to
Vegetarianism, “the practice of living wholly on vegetable
food, with or without dairy products, honey and eggs,”8 is a
behaviour that has for centuries been adopted primarily because
of ethical objections to the use of animals for food. Some
vegetarians have claimed that not consuming meat has beneficial
effects on brain function. According to Benjamin Franklin, the
18th century statesman and scientist, a vegetarian diet results in
“greater clearness of head and quicker comprehension.”9 But in
the early part of the 20th century medical opinion on the potential health benefits of a vegetarian diet—at least in Britain—
tended to be unenthusiastic: “Vegetarianism is harmless enough,
though it is apt to fill a man with wind and self-righteousness,”
declared Robert Hutchison in an address to the BMA in 1930. In
the past few years, however, growing epidemiological evidence,
some from prospective studies, has suggested that the health
benefits associated with vegetarianism may be considerable:
lower serum cholesterol concentrations, lower blood pressure,
and a reduced risk of obesity and coronary heart disease.10–12
Might vegetarianism explain in part why children and
adolescents who score higher on tests of intelligence have a
lower risk of coronary heart disease in later life? In view of the
evidence that vegetarians tend to have lower levels of cardiovascular risk, the decision to adopt a vegetarian diet might be viewed
as a healthier option than the consumption of meat. Does a
higher IQ make this decision more likely? This question could
not be answered by a search of the biomedical and social science
databases. We used the 1970 British cohort study to examine
prospectively the effect of childhood IQ on the likelihood of
being a vegetarian as an adult.
The 1970 British cohort study comprises 17 198 live births
occurring to parents living in Great Britain between 5 and 11
April 1970. Mental ability was assessed at the age of 10 years
using a modified version of the British ability scales.13 The four
subscales were word definitions, word similarities, recall of digits,
and matrices. We carried out a principal components analysis of
the positively correlated scores from these four tests to establish
the presence of a general cognitive ability factor (traditionally
referred to as “g”).14 The first unrotated principal component
accounted for 57% of the total variance among the four tests. We
used this component to derive a g score for each participant. For
ease of interpretation we transformed the g score to the widely
used IQ equivalent: mean (SD) 100 (15). At age 30 years participants were interviewed at home, when they were asked about
whether they were vegetarian and, if so, what diet they followed.
Information on socioeconomic status was reported by the
parents when the participants were aged 10 years (parental
occupational social class) and by the participants at age 30 (current occupational social class, academic or vocational qualifications, and income). Overall 11 204 participants provided
information on vegetarian status at the 30 year follow-up, of
whom 8170 (72.9%) had data on IQ score at age 10 years and
were therefore included in our analyses.
page 1 of 4
BMJ Online First
Copyright 2007 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
We used analysis of covariance and the 2 test to examine the
characteristics of the participants, and logistic regression to
examine prospectively the relation between childhood IQ score
and vegetarianism as an adult.
In total 366 (4.5%) of 8170 participants of the 1970 British
cohort study with IQ scores at age 10 years said they were
vegetarian: nine (2.5%) were vegan and 123 (33.6%) stated they
were vegetarian but reported consuming fish or chicken.
Vegetarians were more likely to be female, to be of a non-manual
occupational social class (in childhood and currently), and to
have higher academic or vocational qualifications (table 1[T1]):
8.5% of vegetarians (n = 31) had a higher degree or equivalent
vocational qualification compared with 3.5% of non-vegetarians
(n = 275). This evidence of higher socioeconomic status was not
reflected in the vegetarians’ annual income, which was similar to
that of non-vegetarians. When strict vegetarians (no fish or meat)
were compared with those who said they were vegetarian but
consumed fish or chicken, no differences were found between
them in any of these characteristics (data not shown).
IQ in childhood was associated with all indicators of
socioeconomic status. Mean childhood IQ was higher in participants from non-manual occupational backgrounds, both in
childhood and currently; in those with higher academic or vocational qualifications; and in those with higher annual gross earnings (data not shown).
Table 1 Characteristics of study participants in relation to self-reported
vegetarianism at age 30 years (n=8170)
No (%) of
in each category
No (%) of
vegetarians in
each category
3951 (50.6)
271 (74.0)
3853 (49.4)
95 (26.0)***
Professional or managerial
2119 (27.2)
125 (34.2)
Skilled non-manual
719 (9.2)
33 (9.0)
2945 (37.7)
136 (37.2)
1165 (14.9)
40 (10.9)
856 (11.0)
32 (8.7)*
Parental social class†:
Current social class:
Professional or managerial
2798 (35.8)
170 (46.5)
Skilled non-manual
1991 (25.5)
111 (30.3)
1611 (20.6)
38 (10.4)
1235 (15.8)
39 (10.7)
169 (2.2)
8 (2.2)***
Academic or vocational
On average, vegetarians had a higher childhood IQ score
than non-vegetarians. According to sex, the mean (SD)
childhood IQ score of vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians was 106.1 (14.7) and 100.6 (15.2) for men and 104.0
(14.1) and 99.0 (14.7) for women, differences of 5.5 and 5.0
points (P < 0.001). When vegetarians were divided into those who were strictly vegetarian (no fish or meat) and those who consumed fish or chicken, no difference was found in IQ score. Among those who had taken vegetarianism to its logical conclusion (“gone the whole hog,”, as it were) and become vegan (no animal products), mean IQ scores were lower. On average, vegans had a childhood IQ score that was nearly 10 points lower than other vegetarians: mean (SD) IQ score 95.1 (14.8) in vegans compared with 104.8 (14.1) in other vegetarians (P = 0.04), although this estimate must be viewed with caution as only nine participants were vegan. The odds ratio for being vegetarian at age 30 years for one standard deviation increase in childhood IQ score was 1.38 (95% confidence interval 1.24 to 1.53; table 2[T2]). After controlling for sex, the odds ratio increased to 1.42 (1.28 to 1.59). Separate adjustment for social class, both in childhood and currently, and academic or vocational qualifications, attenuated these relations, particularly when academic or vocational qualifications were added to the model—but the associations remained statistically significant. In multivariate analysis the odds ratio for being vegetarian was 1.20 (1.06 to 1.36) for one standard deviation increase in childhood IQ score. When the analysis was repeated after removing those who said that they were vegetarian but consumed fish or chicken, this result was essentially unchanged (1.19, 1.03 to 1.39). Additional adjustment for annual earnings had no effect on the strength of the relation between childhood IQ and later vegetarianism (data not shown). Discussion Participants of the 1970 British cohort study with higher intelligence test scores in childhood were more likely to report being a vegetarian at age 30 years. This relation was partly accounted for by educational attainment and by occupational social class in adult life but remained statistically significant after adjustment for these factors. Several investigators have examined the link between education (a strong correlate of mental ability15) and vegetarianism. Findings are mixed. Pooled data from a meta-analysis of vegetarianism and mortality11 showed that of four studies reporting data on educational attainment two showed higher levels in vegetarians than in non-vegetarians, whereas in two other studies the opposite association was seen. In previous analyses of the 1970 British cohort study, a greater consumption of non-meat products, such as bread or fresh fruit, was apparent in people with high educational attainment.16 Although the vegetarians in this cohort were, on average, more intelligent, better educated, and of higher occupational No qualifications 695 685 (8.8) 10 (2.7) CSE equivalent NVQ 1 647 629 (8.1) 18 (4.9) O level or equivalent NVQ 2 2320 2246 (28.8) 74 (20.2) A level or equivalent NVQ 3 1708 1638 (21.0) 70 (19.1) Degree, diploma, or equivalent NVQ 4 2494 2331 (29.9) 163 (44.5) Higher degree or NVQ 5 306 275 (3.5) 31 (8.5)*** ≤£11 440 1494 1424 (24.9) 70 (26.6) Adjustments Odds ratio (95% CI) £11 441−£16 600 1496 1432 (25.0) 64 (24.3) Unadjusted 1.38 (1.24 to 1.53) £16 6001−£23 000 1518 1451 (25.3) 67 (25.5) Sex 1.42 (1.28 to 1.59) >£23 000
1422 (24.8)
62 (23.6)
Parental social class
1.35 (1.21 to 1.51)
Current social class
1.29 (1.15 to 1.45)
Annual gross earnings‡:
£1.00 (€1.48; $1.89). NVQ=national vocational qualifications.
*P<0.05; ***P<0.001. †Derived from mother’s occupation if no father present from whom to derive occupation. ‡Available for 5992 participants. page 2 of 4 Table 2 Odds ratios (95% CI) for being vegetarian at age 30 years for a one standard deviation increase in childhood IQ score in 8170 participants of the 1970 British cohort study Academic or vocational qualifications 1.16 (1.03 to 1.30) All 1.20 (1.06 to 1.36) BMJ Online First Research social class than the non-vegetarians, these socioeconomic advantages were not reflected in their income. It may be that ethical considerations determined not just their diet but also their choice of employment. Compared with non-vegetarians, vegetarians were less likely to be working in the private sector and more likely to be working in charitable organisations, local government, or education: 17% of the vegetarians worked in education compared with 9% of non-vegetarians. When asked, as part of the follow-up survey, what they thought of the statement “The government should redistribute income,” 50% of vegetarians said they agreed compared with 41% of nonvegetarians, and this proportion was even higher among male vegetarians (61% v 42%). Such views may not be compatible with a career in the more lucrative employment sectors. Some of the participants who reported being vegetarian said they consumed fish or chicken. We found no difference in IQ scores, or any marker of socioeconomic status, between this group and the strict vegetarians. It may be that vegetarianism exists as a continuum, with those who describe themselves as vegetarian but who are prepared to eat white meat or fish (flesh that is paler and less obviously meaty than beef, pork, or lamb) having the same trait but less of it than those who avoid consuming any animal flesh. The strengths of this study are its size, resulting in high statistical power; the representativeness of the sample, resulting in a high degree of generalisability for the British population born around the same time; and the breadth of data on socioeconomic status, allowing an examination of the role of potential confounding and mediating variables. Our study also has some limitations. Firstly, some attrition has occurred in the cohort over time. The participants at the 30 year follow-up did gain significantly higher IQ scores at age 10 than those who did not take part, although the size of the differences was modest (0.3 of a standard deviation). Unless the relation between childhood mental ability and vegetarianism is in the opposite direction in non-participants, little bias will have been introduced in our study. Secondly, we had no information from the 30 year follow-up on how long our participants had been vegetarian. Evidence from a subset of 3795 participants (46.5%) who had taken part in a previous follow-up of the cohort when they were aged 16 years suggests that most of those who were vegetarian at age 30 had chosen that type of diet as adolescents or young adults, some years after their IQ was measured: among these 3795 participants, only 32% of those who were vegetarian at age 30 were already vegetarian at age 16, and of those already vegetarian at age 16 95% had become vegetarian between the ages of 11 and 16. The difference in childhood IQ scores between vegetarian and non-vegetarian participants at age 30 was also apparent at age 16; compared with non-vegetarians at this age, those who were vegetarian scored on average 4.1 points higher on the mental ability test at age 10. Although our results suggest that children who are more intelligent may be more likely to become vegetarian as adolescents or as young adults, it does not rule out the possibility that such a diet might have some beneficial effect on subsequent cognitive performance. Might the nature of the vegetarians’ diet in this cohort have enhanced their apparently superior brain power? Was this the mechanism that helped them to achieve the disproportionate number of higher degrees? Benjamin Franklin and George Bernard Shaw, both ardent vegetarians, would have us believe so. According to Shaw in an article published in The Star in 1890, “A mind of the calibre of mine cannot derive its nutriment from cows.” Even Shakespeare, not known for his vegetarian sensibilities, expressed through Sir Andrew Aguecheek BMJ Online First What is already known on this topic Vegetarianism may be viewed by those of higher intelligence as a healthier option than consuming meat What this study adds Higher scores for IQ in childhood are associated with an increased likelihood of vegetarianism in adulthood in Twelfth Night (Act 1, Scene 3) a belief in the deleterious effects of consuming meat; “I am a great eater of beef and I believe that does harm t ... Purchase answer to see full attachment

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code ESSAYSHELP