For this paper, provide 1) a concise yet through description of the key question that was addressed by the authors, and 2) a novel question that either the authors did not address but should have, or


For this monograph, produce 1) a neat yet through description of the key scrutiny that was discourseed by the authors, and 2) a innovating scrutiny that either the authors did not discourse but should bear, or that occurred to you behind having decipher the monograph. This should be a innovating apprehension that faculty correct the monograph's contact, eliminate a concept, or discourse a key/new outcome that was not instantly discourseed in the pristine discourse monograph. Limit ~300 words