# data[].attributes.body
I believe it would be beneficial to do more research on this subject.

# data[].attributes.body
Therefore, any generalization if made can only include at most the state which the campuses fall in.

# data[].attributes.body
In addition, several additional factors that were not factored in by the researchers could have also influenced students' homesickness: cuisine differences and students' religious beliefs.

# data[].attributes.body
This suggests that perceived discrimination and homesickness may not have a well-defined correlation, or that it may be, after all, not truly a significant factor in predicting homesickness.

# data[].attributes.body
We believe that if the authors used a more beneficial way to study why cats are good, the study would have been more credible rather than it being based on opinion.

# data[].attributes.body
The study that was done was not based on facts and research but on opinions instead.

# data[].attributes.body
The data could have shown more related information, if the author asked the people in related fields such as pet store workers or cat zoologist.

# data[].attributes.body
The first sentence in the introduction was unnecessary since cats being a four-legged creature is general knowledge and it especially doesn’t need a citation.

# data[].attributes.body
The study did not include many participants, therefore the results may not be accurate and they are baised.

# data[].attributes.body
The conclusion lacks detail and explanation on why cats are good.

# data[].attributes.body
In the methods section, the authors should’ve made it clear that the egg and spoon race was meant to incentivize them to agree on a consensus.

# data[].attributes.body
The author’s bias floods the study and there is no actual evidence implied.

# data[].attributes.body
The article is not specific enough, there's no meaning to the topic itself. Good is not specific and there is no context given.

# data[].attributes.body
The author implies that cats are able to talk and therefore determine if they are good or not. This is a weakness as cats in fact do not talk and cannot vouch for their character

# data[].attributes.body
By publishing a study with information as wrong as telling people cats can talk leads to false information being spread. Someone who is uneducated or is learning could believe the credibility of this author and could now believe that cats talk.

# data[].attributes.body
A study that includes a sample size of 2 people is inaccurate to speak for a group as a whole. Limitations seen in this study were the sample size, and the decision to have an egg and spoon race to come upon agreement was also a limitation as this never happened because of the biased party

# data[].attributes.body
The author should provide reasons why cats are good or why cats are bad. For example cats are bad because they scratch you.

# data[].attributes.body
The vagueness of the result section may lead audience to wonder about the specifics of the studies made to reach this consensus.

# data[].attributes.body
The author is giving very limited information, it is not providing proves why cats are good.

# data[].attributes.body
The introduction paragraph could have described the purpose and goal of the article in a better way to explain why cats are good.

# data[].attributes.body
The author is not giving credit by not proving actual sources. There is not enough citation.

# data[].attributes.body
The topic is quite broad and confusing . Are cats good? there is no meaning to this sentence without given context. To who?, what? or why?  If the author gave us a more specific topic that gave meaning to the sentence we could then have a more in depth study that actually made sense

# data[].attributes.body
Conclusion is short and not giving brief information about the whole topic.

# data[].attributes.body
The sample for the study has limitation as well.

# data[].attributes.body
The author thinks If consensus is not reached, a series of egg-spoon competitions are held every Sunday morning until consensus is reached. Sensitivity analysis can be more good idea but is beyond the scope of this scientific outcome.

# data[].attributes.body
Cats having voting rights was brought up by the author. Cats do not have voting rights and I do not understand how this pertains to the study.

# data[].attributes.body
a two person consensus is not satisfactory to speak to a group as whole

# data[].attributes.body
The author could have expressed two perspectives, for example, the explanation of why cats are not good, to emphasize the credibility on why cats are good. A larger audience could have been reached as well.

# data[].attributes.body
The discussion and conclusion sections failed to provide in-depth details on the studies done. Instead, they mentioned previous studies more than the current one.

# data[].attributes.body
If they can find more sample of cat for research, the research would be more complete.