>>11066547>However, there is a large fault in a crucial assumption of twin studies: the assumption that the twins are adopted by families with very different backgrounds and live in very different environments.This isn't the assumption, and we can categories how differently those families are. You say that wealth is what makes the difference, the adoption studies explicitly look at the difference SEC between these families.
>Indeed, a study that accounted for these variables found that the restricted variability of family environments in adoption studies could account for as much as 50% of the variance IQ found in these studies.This implies that the other 50% would be genes. If the 50% difference in variance is accounted for SES and HOME scores, what is the rest? This fits neatly in with the estimate of genes being responsible for 50% of the variance observed in the spread of IQ scores.
As for the rest of the essay you copied from someone else. It is very clear that you are arguing from dishonest stand point. You jump to conclusions and mislead with the information. Several of them suggesting you don't actually understand what you have copied
