I've got another essay which needs lots of correction. I always appreciate your help & feedback. The topic is which one-nature or nurture?-has more influence on human's intelligence.
'Nature or nurture' issue has been at the center of a long-running debate among many scholars. It is no denying that both genetic and acquired factor have an influence on one's intelligence to some degree. From my perspective, however, intelligence is the result of nurturing, not a magical gift from nature.
Some cases of children who were left in the wilderness and raised with wild animals indicate the significance of mothering--nurturing. When those isolated children were found, they were unable to speak language, even a word, and their behaviors were not unlike animals'. If they were born with a special 'innate' ability which enables, nativists believe, children to magically acquire everything from language to social manner at ease, why not these wild children failed to acquire the custom of human society?
One tragic experiment conducted by a German king proves that one's language, one type of the intelligence, is not naturally acquired, but learned after years of exposure. The King hoped to find out what language a child would speak if not being told any language after birth. The result was disastrous: All infants who were the subject of this experiment died before the first year, not acquiring any language at all.
If human being's intelligence were really genetically determined, all cases mentioned above would never happen. With the innate property which they are given from birth, they should've been able to have proper behavior and speak language without any external help. Unfortunately, that is not true. After a few years of a good mothering, human beings become independent and mature, so their intelligence does. Therefore, 'nurture' is a more significant factor in human's intelligence.