Article review on critique article

This article leads to the current study about the prevalence of Dyslexia in the United States. Though this article builds on prior hypothesis that have been conducted, this research does not devise a new methodology in being able to come up with original findings. This means that both the empirical and normative values that have been stressed by this research are based on the values and bias that had been witnessed in prior research. In terms of the argument that this research makes, it is clear that the author has a clear hypothesis that personal factors are among the key reasons that has increased the prevalence of Dyslexia, in about three percent of children in the United States. However, this sample that is investigated within the research that is conducted is questionable.
The first criterion that causes this research to be subject to criticism is the idea that the sample size that is tested is insufficient. This is because the sample size that is tested is below a hundred. In this case the size of the data is 60. This means that the results that are realized from this research might not represent the diverse cases of Dyslexia within the United States. In addition, it is clear that the target population that was investigated was from an urban area. These subjects the results to a form of bias because children raised in rural areas might be prone to Dyslexia compared to the ones raised in urban areas. Considering that children up bring in both rural and urban areas is a bit different. There is a higher likelihood that the places where children reside may play a key role in increasing the likelihood of Dyslexia. In conclusion, despite structuring its arguments, this article does not provide a counter argument for the set of claims brought forth by the author.