Changes

However, this study suffers from ambiguity in the definition of its concepts.  Joining the description "prejudicial" to the noun "perception" is a contradiction in terms.  If a person is able to perceive something, common usage indicates that the perceived object exists.  But if a notion is ''prejudicially'' formed, by definition that notion is too inadequate to be called a perception of its object due to the notion's lack of sufficient evidence.

However, this study suffers from ambiguity in the definition of its concepts.  Joining the description "prejudicial" to the noun "perception" is a contradiction in terms.  If a person is able to perceive something, common usage indicates that the perceived object exists.  But if a notion is ''prejudicially'' formed, by definition that notion is too inadequate to be called a perception of its object due to the notion's lack of sufficient evidence.

So saying a prejudicial ''study'' or ''examination'' of an unknown object's or person's traits or characteristics instead results in the recognition of ''misperceptions'' by the author of the research, but actually saying so about a person's examination of facts personalizes the act of ''misperceiving'' to the point that it opens to the audited author of the thesis to charges of hypocrisy, because the manner of the author's own understanding of the prejudices challenging the authenticity of the study or examination is not conveyed.

So saying a prejudicial ''study'' or ''examination'' of an unknown object's or person's traits or characteristics instead results in the recognition of ''misperceptions'' by the author of the journal article, but actually saying so about a person's examination of facts personalizes the act of ''misperceiving'' to the point that it opens to the audited author of the thesis to charges of hypocrisy, because the manner of the author's own understanding of the prejudices challenging the authenticity of the study or examination is not conveyed.

==See also==

==See also==