1. For whom has Brownlee intended her essay? The general public? Technicians? Experts? Executives? What about the essays has led you to draw this conclusion?
Brownlee is writing for the general public with no prior knowledge of the subject. She speaks plainly and explains any technical jargon she uses.

2. Brownlee's thesis is located in paragraph four (4). Focusing only on what she has written in paragraph four, what do you think Brownlee wants to demonstrate to her readers in the body of her informative article.
Based on paragraph four it seems like Brownlee is trying to demonstrate that human biology shows how important love is as an emotion, and that because of this biology we are able to be good to each other.

3. Now look back over the body of Brownlee's essay. If the body of the essay does not carry out the thesis, is the problem more with the thesis paragraph (because it does not reflect a new and better direction in the body) or with the body (because it wanders)? If you identify places in the essay where Brownlee's article fails to support her thesis, what would you do to improve the overall unity of Brownlee's article.
Brownlee does a good job of carrying out her thesis, except for the lack of explanation for the word 'good'. Without going any farther into what she considers to be good she starts explaining about the biochemistry involved with love. The reader is left with their own interpretation of what she is trying to get at, which may make her arguments confusing or irrelevant. The problem is with the wording of her thesis, or just a lack of explanation of the thesis.

4. Introductions are supposed to warm reader's up to a given topic and, more importantly, to find points where the writer's position is related to the reader's experience, interests, or knowledge. What does Brownlee do in the introduction to warm her reader's up to the her topic.
Brownlee uses some basic prose to paint a picture of how important love is. She also brings the mother-child connection into the discussion very early. I think this draws on the reader's experience in a big way. Everybody has a mother, and a large portion of people (especially those that read a magazine such as this) would more often than not have a positive connection with their mother. It is a safe bet that making the reader think of their connection with their mother would bring a positive connection with love.

5. Examine how Shannon Brownlee uses evidence to support her points and where she uses no evidence in support of her points. Having done this, identify those points that seem to contain reliable information and, then, those that seem inadequately supported. Be able to explain why certain points seem either well or inadequately supported.
Brownlee uses reliable information when citing the studies by Barry Keverne on talapoin monkeys. While she doesn't give specific citation the reader can assume a primatologist from Cambridge University of England would be able to give good information on the topic. But when she is discussing the vagus nerve she uses a lot of 'Porges says' without giving his title or discipline. For all we know he could be the gardener of the University of Maryland. A lot of the information about the vagus nerve could be scientific fact, but she is giving the information in a way that seems like it is an opinion from Stephen Porges.

6. In a second pass through the article, make note of where Brownlee makes the scientific findings that she reports about sound conclusive, and where she uses language that qualifies certain findings. Having noted the presence or absence of qualifying language when reporting the scientific findings, what overall impression about the validity or conclusiveness of the findings are you as a reader left with? In your estimate, how trustworthy is Brownlee's information.
Brownlee tries to make all of her evidence sound conclusive. She seems to hide words in the text that would alert the reader of sketchy results. Non-conclusive language is used throughout the article which makes me think that a lot of her evidence is merely conjecture rather than fact.

7. Select one passage from Brownlee's article that seems either inadequately supported or overly conclusive and explain what you would do to support the passage or make it appear more credible.
The only connection she makes between prairie voles and humans is that the males both find danger an aphrodisiac. But the integration of the two and the placement of the paragraphs makes the reader connect prairie voles and humans in more ways than that. I think that there needs to be a better explanation of what is hypothesis as apposed to fact. She states when something is factual, but glazes over a one word explanation if something is less than factual.

8. Does Brownlee use language that is appropriate for her nonacademic audience? Identify instances where she is particularly successful in writing for her nonacademic audience. What might you do in your forthcoming essay to achieve a similar degree of success.
Brownlee takes potentially hard to understand concepts, like oxytocin or endorphins, and either explains them over the course of a few paragraphs, like with oxytocin, or puts them into basic terms, like with endorphins. Oxytocin was explained in parts, building upon what was previously said about it, making it easily understandable. This is something I plan to do in my essay; all the information in the world is useless if the reader can't understand the jargon used to explain it.