After violently shaking the container containing the organism a few times, the organism still demonstrated the ability to move around and behave normally. Through this test alone, it can be hypothesized that its central nervous system is not complex and/or is well protected. Otherwise, the organism would have demonstrated an inability to move around after being violently shook. It was observed that the organism scrunches up after being violently shaken, and contracts its body immediately in response. This behavior is most likely a reflexive response in order to better protect its body. More tests were done, and it was realized that the longer or more violent the shake, the longer the organism stays in shock until it demonstrates the ability to move around again. A final test was performed, and the organism was shook for about 5 seconds violently. The organism was in shock for about 4 minutes before being able to regain its ability to move around again, supporting the initial hypothesis. The test was not redone for a longer time in fear that the organism may die if the shaking duration lasts too long.
Comments
Good methological explanation
Good methological explanation of what you did. It might be a good idea to use less of a passive voice when you say things like "it was hypothesized" or the test "was performed." Instead try saying what was done or concluded without labeling it. Also I think in this context, grammatically the word should be shaken rather than shook.
Avoid colloquialisms
Avoid colloquial expressions (like "scrunches up").
Suggestion
Define "normally" because a reader who has never seen the organism you are describing could have no idea of what that means. Also make sure to keep in mind to use more technical terms to make your writing sound more serious. I did like how you related each observation to a potential function.