Question

Which of the following is most likely to be the title of a paper that argues that Cohen's (2002) concept is still valid?

(a) Cohen's (2002) Concept is Still Valid: A Review of the Evidence
(b) Cohen's (2002) Concept is Outdated: A New Paradigm for the 21st Century
(c) Cohen's (2002) Concept is Still Relevant, but Needs to be Updated
(d) Cohen's (2002) Concept is No Longer Valid: A New Approach is Needed

Answer 1

Option (a) 'Cohen's (2002) Concept is Still Valid: A Review of the Evidence' is the title that best corresponds to a paper arguing for the continued validity of Cohen's concept. It is straightforward and reflects the content supporting the concept's relevance.

Step-by-step explanation:

The title of a paper that argues that Cohen's (2002) concept is still valid would be (a) Cohen's (2002) Concept is Still Valid: A Review of the Evidence. This title clearly reflects content that supports the concept's ongoing validity, making a case for its continued relevance by reviewing evidence. A well-structured title is critical for conveying the purpose of a paper; it should be straightforward, reflect the content accurately and guide the reader on what to expect in the paper. If the content is about the enduring validity of Cohen's concept, then option (a) is appropriately straightforward and aligned with the arguments likely presented within the paper. Conversely, options (b), (c), and (d) suggest that Cohen's concept is either outdated or requires modification, and therefore would not be suitable titles for a paper arguing in Favor of the concept's validity.