CRITIQUE
             I don't know if it is fair for the researchers to judge their study based on this article when it does not give us every detail in the actual study. However, I will try to mention some points that I believe are important and the researchers either did not cover it completely or missed it at all.
             The first thing that I have noticed about this article that you need to go through a lot of background information before you get to the purpose of the study - maybe the researchers thought that since they stated their purpose as the title of the article it was enough- which I believe should be the first thing you should start with. In addition, even when I have found the purpose of the study I could not understand it completely due to the fact that it has many terminologies that needed to be defined, which the researchers missed or though it do not need to be defined. However, in the both possibilities obviously they were wrong. More over, the researchers did not state a clear hypothesis or research questions, I had to search for it and try to figure it out which I believe should not be my job to search for information that had to be stated clearly.
             Even though, the researchers listed around five studies relevant to their study purpose, I don't think the researchers did a good job in providing a comprehensive image of this related literature due to the fact that most of the literatures were briefly described. However, the article gave a kind of comprehensive image of the O'Callaghan's study, and I believe that's happened due to the fact that the researchers initially wanted to test O'Callaghan's finding under different setting. In addition, the article did not give a
             Summary of the finding of the other related literatures except maybe for the O'Callaghan's study.
             Even though the researchers gave sort of good i
             ...