Your goal for an extra 25 points on exam 2 is to research this scientific article and answer a variety of questions about its contents. 

Article Link :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4369385/

We are in a unique time of the discovery and research of the coronavirus. This virus has been linked to deaths worldwide. Since we are on the immune system, I thought it would be beneficial to take the time to do some research of your own. Attached are 2 pieces of information:

Your goal for an extra 25 points on exam 2 is to research this scientific article and answer a variety of questions about its contents. The questions to answer can be found below. The article is very dense and may be hard to understand. If you are unfamiliar with a term, look it up to satisfy your curiosity and expand your knowledge. I am not expecting you totally comprehend this article in all of its technical glory…just to read the article and answer questions based upon your understanding of the article and the immune system.

Questions you must address in your analysis:

Introduction

Does the manuscript clearly explain the question under consideration?

Do you agree that this is an important/interesting question?

Would there have been a better question to ask?

Data

Did they measure the right variables to answer their question?

How good are the data? (quality, precision)

How extensive are the data? (more is usually better)

Is there any evidence that “inconvenient” data were ignored?

If there are weaknesses in the data, how easy would it have been to do better?

Would the collection of more or better data be likely to change the answer?

Analysis

Were there any flaws in the data analysis?

How strong were the results of the analyses?

Were alternative hypotheses evaluated?

Presentation

Were the figures and tables easy to understand?

Were the figures and tables “honest” or were they misleading?

Discussion

Did the discussion go beyond what the data support?

Were alternative explanations considered?

Can you think of alternative explanations that were not addressed?

Do you agree with the logic of the discussion?

Do you agree with the conclusions of the paper?

Do the authors evaluate potential weaknesses of the paper?

Can you think of potential weaknesses that were not addressed?

Does the paper advance our understanding of the field?