If the public had been less educated, I'm sure the language would have been more watered down and taken on a more visual form. In terms of grammar and spelling there were no errors. Many of the words were quite long and obtuse and there wasn't much filler material. With academic works such as these they undergo a series of edits in order to produce the most credible and error-free presentation. Many sentences are complex, which makes reading this piece fluently more difficult than other prose. The language itself is pretty basic, there aren't many descriptive terms or conceptual language. In a generation that grew up with Bill Nye, the science guy, we are not used to seeing science in a pure, boring form. In many branches of science there are no violent explosions or possibilities for revolutionary discoveries. Much of science is simply filling in the blanks of phenomena we already understand. This language confirms this feeling. The topic under discussion, although important in the field of social development, becomes very mundane when explored in ink. In all this work there is no appeal to ethics, it would not have been necessary. Emotional pleas are often used in place of convincing, fact-based information. This article contained a huge amount of factual information and since it was not an argumentative article, there was no side to defend