The major similarity between the case studies is that they both assume a similar criterion while presenting their fact findings. This criterion assumes an Abstract-Methods-Results-Discussion-Conclusion-Acknowledgement–Reference format which is well laid out perhaps to bring about the cohesion and understandability of the research at hand. The arrangement could also be because of the pre-requisite put forth by research agencies on fair methodologies used in constructing research materials. Another similarity arises out of the manner in which questionnaires were administered. In both cases, there were in-persons model of questionnaire administration process. Subsequently, the participants selected for the research study were considered in terms of both gender and age.
There is a crucial similarity in terms of the methods used while analyzing the sample size. Such units of standards as Confidential Intervals and adjustment are used throughout the research case studies. They are scientific units which are assigned to research models of such nature since they help to determine the regression analysis of the sample size under consideration. It should be fair to indicate that both of these studies conform to the findings of precedent research conducted under the same topic.
All of the findings are based on the fact that consumption of alcohol, smoking of cigarettes as well as caffeine intake have a reducing effect to the risk of suffering from PD. Further, there is a significant level of protective capability that coffee possesses towards the risk of suffering from Parkinson’s disease. In both of the research studies, there is an inverse relationship towards the PD risks between the consumption of Alcohol, cigarette smoking as well as coffee intake.
To sum up, it is fair to indicate that both of these research studies were successful in portraying the different effects consumption of alcohol; cigarette smoking as well as caffeine intake has on PD risks. Notably, in the case study (II) the findings from the used participants who consumed Cola and tea were slightly different from the one in case study (I) since it is assumed that consumption of beverages and not coffee contributes to the protective capability towards lowering of PD risks altogether (Checkoway, Powers, Smith-Weller, Franklin, Longstreth , Swanson, 2002, p.5-8).
From my point of view, the research methodologies used suited the two articles. The different results were obtained by the different methodologies of research deployed. For instance, in the article (II), the results refute the findings that limit coffee to be the only beverage with protective capabilities against PD risk. Notwithstanding, it deduces the fact that both tea and Cola possess a similar capability as well. In the course of evaluating the two articles, the aspect of referencing as well as expounding on the results obtained are the main areas of academic writing that I have managed to comprehend. In the course of writing an academic paper, the aspect of referencing cannot be overruled since it recognizes and appreciates the original author of the findings. This facet has been brought out well within these two readings.
