Abstract Draft

[xorabear]

This paper explores the link between the likelihood of developing dementia and education in answering “Can a person's amount of education and its quality decrease the chances of having dementia or cognitive problems in older ages?" The variables we use include pz216 years of education, forgetful during daily activities(PV009) ever had dementia(PC273), years of education(PZ216), (PC272) had Alzheimer's, and (PB014) highest level of education. Using the variables we compiled charts and graphs to reach our conclusion. Evidence from the literature review establishes a connection between the amount of education and the development of dementia which is determined by how long you're in school, your highest level of education, socioeconomic status, the quality of how much brain capacity you use, and your job. The data isn't insufficient to establish a concrete connection between dementia and the level and years of higher education—however, some data shows a semblance of a connection between education and the development of dementia.

[xorabear]

@kbuzard would you look at this and give me feedback

[kbuzard]

My peers and I sought to answer the question “Can a person's amount of education and its quality decrease the chances of having dementia or cognitive problems in older ages?"

@xorabear Replace "My peers and I sought" with "This paper seeks"

I'm not aware of any data you have about the quality of education--you're only looking at the amount, right? Don't put something in there if you're not going to be able to speak to it.

Our method of testing the theory was through making a combination of graphs, charts, and data using variables found in our data sets.

This is not helpful to the reader because this is what every empirical paper does. You should be more specific about what you do and what data you use.

The lack of connection can be attributed to large datasets, testing limited variables, oversights when looking at the data set and timing as well as data issues early in the process.

Having a large dataset is not typically a reason that we can't find answers; having too little data is a problem, but having a lot of observations is a good thing. Also, we don't talk about issues with our process like the data issues you pointed out. The research report tells what you did and why you did it; it can also point out if there are issues with the data (not enough observations, mismeasurement, etc); but stumbling blocks you encountered are not considered relevant (notice that there's nothing like this in any of the papers you read).

In conclusion, there seems to be a connection between the development of dementia and education however we were unable to forge a strong connection.

I thought I saw some strong evidence in at least one of the graphs over years of education--are you sure this is going to be your final conclusion? From what I understand, the relationship between education and dementia is one of the most robust findings in the social sciences, so it would be surprising if you couldn't find evidence for it.

introduction of the project, Methods, results, discussion, and conclusion

I don't know why this is here.

[xorabear]

My peers and I sought to answer the question “Can a person's amount of education and its quality decrease the chances of having dementia or cognitive problems in older ages?"

@xorabear Replace "My peers and I sought" with "This paper seeks"

I'm not aware of any data you have about the quality of education--you're only looking at the amount, right? Don't put something in there if you're not going to be able to speak to it.

Our method of testing the theory was through making a combination of graphs, charts, and data using variables found in our data sets.

This is not helpful to the reader because this is what every empirical paper does. You should be more specific about what you do and what data you use.

The lack of connection can be attributed to large datasets, testing limited variables, oversights when looking at the data set and timing as well as data issues early in the process.

Having a large dataset is not typically a reason that we can't find answers; having too little data is a problem, but having a lot of observations is a good thing. Also, we don't talk about issues with our process like the data issues you pointed out. The research report tells what you did and why you did it; it can also point out if there are issues with the data (not enough observations, mismeasurement, etc); but stumbling blocks you encountered are not considered relevant (notice that there's nothing like this in any of the papers you read).

In conclusion, there seems to be a connection between the development of dementia and education however we were unable to forge a strong connection.

I thought I saw some strong evidence in at least one of the graphs over years of education--are you sure this is going to be your final conclusion? From what I understand, the relationship between education and dementia is one of the most robust findings in the social sciences, so it would be surprising if you couldn't find evidence for it.

introduction of the project, Methods, results, discussion, and conclusion

I don't know why this is here.

Introduction of the project, Methods, results, discussion, and conclusion this is what it's supposed to includ. I looked up the format unless i should go to the readings for that. e. I wasn't 100% sure what the conclusion was as no one communicated with me unless something is due however Luke just said he's switching it but that was the original conclusion but he's going to fix it ig. but I'm still kinda confused on what everything actually means I'll figure it out by browsing more.

[kbuzard]

Introduction of the project, Methods, results, discussion, and conclusion this is what it's supposed to includ

I agree that these are the main elements of the paper that are meant to be summarized in the abstract. But the list should not be included in the abstract.