Critique: Section 4: Criticisms of the Implicit Argument Made in Court
by Using Chadwick Et Al.'s Quantity

Section 1: General comments

Overall, your logic is clear, and I like how you explicitly state
three reasons as to why Chadwick's quantity is not enough to answer
the question at hand.  Occasionally, your text is repetitive, and the
ratios of the probabilities should be explained as to why they are
important.  A few sentences begin with the word 'but' which is
generally discouraged and could be replaced with 'however.'  The
figure referenced can be explained a little more in the text.  Another
aspect that can be changed is "I will show" or "I argue," which seems
unnecessary to write in a paper. This is a good start.  Generally,
your paragraphs contain only one idea and your explanations are
concise.  A summary paragraph at the end would be useful.

Section 2: Specific comments

P.5 Par. 1 of Section 4: The topic sentence is at the end, and I think
it may be more effective to have at the beginning and having first
sentence be support.  I would also explicitly say the three reasons
here.

P.6. 4.1 Content-wise, I think this may be your weakest argument, and
consequently, it may not be best to lead with it.  Perhaps squeeze it
in between the other reasons.  The second paragraph does not seem to
add much so try to incorporate it into the paragraph by saying
eg. "Many have argued that [case] (citations), and we expand upon that
here.  [stuff you have]."

P.6. 4.2 Sentence one can flow better perhaps with "Instead of using
Chadwick's quanity... we should incorporate all available evidence."
I would also use 'evidence' and not use 'information' at all.  The
parenthetical above Eq. 6 is redundant and should be removed.

P.6 4.3 Who are the 'authors' mentioned? Equation 7 needs to be better
motivated.  How does this quantity help us compare the two?

P.7 4.3 Paragraph 2 'But' -> 'Moreover.'  You have a colloquialism
'split up' which could be replaced by a word such as 'partitioned.'