Research question is situated in a clear biomedical context with citations on lactose intolerance and enzyme inhibition.
Methodological considerations are explained, including controls on temperature and choice of glucometer.
Step-by-step procedure provides volumes, concentrations and incubation times to allow reproducibility.
Use of diagrams and photos enhances clarity of the methodology description.
No buffering system or pH-control protocol is specified to maintain consistent enzyme activity.
Rationale for using a glucometer over an assay kit lacks discussion of relative accuracy and sensitivity.
Pipetting technique (e.g., pre-rinsing tips) is not detailed, leaving minor ambiguities for replication.
Background omits discussion of kinetic parameters (Km, Vmax) which would deepen the biochemical context.
Data tables are formatted clearly with units, significant figures and uncertainty notation.
Graphs include error bars, trend-line equations and R² values, offering precise communication of results.
Worked examples show means, standard deviations and rate calculations transparently.
ANOVA and post-hoc tests are reported with correct degrees of freedom and p-values, demonstrating statistical rigor.
Some table headers are split or unclear (e.g., ±10 % uncertainty label), reducing readability.
Propagation of uncertainties omits certain sources (glucometer ±1 mg dL⁻¹, milk lactose mass).
Uncertainty values are reported to excessive decimal places, which can obscure clarity.
Regression coefficients lack units, which may lead to confusion in interpreting the model.
Conclusion directly addresses the research question and is fully consistent with the analysis presented.
Quantitative evidence (rates, ANOVA significance, R²) is integrated to justify the conclusion.
Conclusion is supported by a relevant comparison to a peer-reviewed study (Zhang et al., 2013).
Logical linkage between competitive inhibition theory and observed data underpins the justification.
Overgeneralization about enzyme saturation beyond the tested concentration range.
Dependence on a single external study limits breadth of scientific context comparison.
Kinetic parameters (Km, Vmax) are not presented to support enzyme behaviour claims.
Minor extrapolations occur without direct data support.
Specific methodological weaknesses are identified (inhibitor range, glucometer precision, reaction timing).
Each weakness is linked to its potential impact on validity or precision.
Realistic improvements are proposed (wider concentration range, alternative assay, additional personnel).
Recognition of replication (number of trials) as a strength shows understanding of reliability.
The relative impact of each identified weakness is not explained or weighed.
Improvements are described but not explained in terms of how they would quantitatively enhance validity or precision.
No mention of adding pH buffering to address enzyme activity conditions.
Suggestions lack detail on implementation and expected error-reduction magnitude.
