The paper “ Bilingualism as a Contributor to Cognitive Reserve Critique by Schweizer, et al" is a great version of an article on psychology. The article focuses on factors that may lead to a delay in diagnosis of symptoms of Alzheimer’ s disease. One of the factors identified is bilingualism. Other factors reported causing a delay in years of education, education, and stimulating leisure activities (Schweizer et al, 2012). Therefore, a sophisticated amount of diagnosis is required to identify the symptoms. The argument in the article is that bilingualism is an environmental factor that acts to produce cognitive reserve (CR) (Schweizer et al, 2012).
Moreover, the article argues that acquisition of a second language in an individual makes individual have an elevated mental function. The weakness of the article starts with the introduction. First, the authors affirm that there exist imbalance between brain atrophy and level of cognitive functioning. However, the authors describe that the relationship between the two is poorly understood. Second, the authors refute the credibility of the use of the cognitive reserve. The authors raise doubts on the correlation in nature.
However, even after raising doubts they go on to use it in the study. On the other hand, the authors agreed to have used computed tomography (CT) scan of participants with probable AD while the article talks of research done on individuals with AD (Schweizer et al, 2012). As a result, doubt is raised on the credibility of participants used in the research. Moreover, there is a high chance the result would fail to support the hypothesis based on the number of participants in the study. For example, 40 patients were relied upon to carry out the study.
In contrast, none of the research relied upon in the introduction involved such a few numbers of participants. The research relied on a hundred of participants due to the seriousness required for such analysis. In addition, the article develops a high sense of credibility. First, the article introduction has relied on several other researchers carried before on the topic. As a result, any claim made by authors in the introduction is supported by scientific research done before. Moreover, the article clarity is achieved by relying on a method that had been tried before in testing the hypothesis.
As a result, the article does not raise any doubt on the procedure of estimating whether the hypothesis is true or false. The method is relied on to test the CR hypothesis. Moreover, the article has demonstrated a high standard of ethics. For example, the study first sought approval from the Hospital Ethics Board (Schweizer et al, 2012). However, the article might have faced some limitation. One of such limitations may have been getting a clear response from participants as they are physiologically challenged.
Moreover, the other limitation may have been in getting an adequate number of participants. There are several things to learn from the article. First, I have identified that improved mental function may pose a challenge in the future. However, the article was not appealing due to the use of jargon only understood by people specializing in the field of study. A repeat of the experiment could enhance the study in various ways. The number of participants could be increased. Moreover, I would like to know what changes take place in the brain due to high mental function that increases potentiality to AD.