In Nicholas Bakalar’s article published this past September, he describes a new study that describes the effects of vasectomies on prostate cancer.
This new study produced results that contradicted previous conclusions done on similar studies. In previous studies, there was a proven connection between the two, meaning men who had vasectomies had a higher chance of getting prostate cancer. However, the researchers from this study concluded that there was no correlation between the two variables.
Although Bakalar never clearly states a hypothesis or research question, it can be inferred that the researchers were trying to assess the relationship between vasectomies on prostate cancer. This study was correlational, meaning its objective was to prove a relationship between the …show more content…
He mostly only states the conclusions reached by the study, which is that there is not a link between vasectomies and prostate cancer.
In contrast with the conclusions of the study, Bakalar offers his own solution to prostate cancer. Citing Eric J. Jacobs, an epidemiologist from the American Cancer Society, Bakalar suggests making healthier lifestyle choices to better prevent prostate cancer rather than avoiding vasectomies. This shows an inference being made that there exists a relationship between healthy lifestyle choices, such as quitting smoking, while there is no relationship between the original predictor and criterion variables.
Bakalar’s conclusions seem justified; however, he should have provided more actual data, rather than just stating the result from the study. Although the average person who reads this would not be interested in statistics and data, it would make the conclusion more justified. Also, his allusion to a different prevention of prostate cancer should have been more backed up by research, and not just a statement from an
This new study produced results that contradicted previous conclusions done on similar studies. In previous studies, there was a proven connection between the two, meaning men who had vasectomies had a higher chance of getting prostate cancer. However, the researchers from this study concluded that there was no correlation between the two variables.
Although Bakalar never clearly states a hypothesis or research question, it can be inferred that the researchers were trying to assess the relationship between vasectomies on prostate cancer. This study was correlational, meaning its objective was to prove a relationship between the …show more content…
He mostly only states the conclusions reached by the study, which is that there is not a link between vasectomies and prostate cancer.
In contrast with the conclusions of the study, Bakalar offers his own solution to prostate cancer. Citing Eric J. Jacobs, an epidemiologist from the American Cancer Society, Bakalar suggests making healthier lifestyle choices to better prevent prostate cancer rather than avoiding vasectomies. This shows an inference being made that there exists a relationship between healthy lifestyle choices, such as quitting smoking, while there is no relationship between the original predictor and criterion variables.
Bakalar’s conclusions seem justified; however, he should have provided more actual data, rather than just stating the result from the study. Although the average person who reads this would not be interested in statistics and data, it would make the conclusion more justified. Also, his allusion to a different prevention of prostate cancer should have been more backed up by research, and not just a statement from an