交作业
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=498905&extra=page%3D1
大家使劲拍啊
[ 本帖最后由 zqzned 于 2006-7-21 14:10 编辑 ] 交作业
http://edu.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=499488&extra=page%3D1
[ 本帖最后由 whyaddd 于 2006-7-22 13:33 编辑 ] 题目分析
1．a group of 25 infants 调查的基本问题
2．mild distress 如何定义的，是否隶属正常反应
3．showed signs of mild distress 此试验无参照组, 即 other infant表现如何.后文more likely than other infants to have been conceived in early autumn 有比较而前面没有，因此比较不成立
4．more likely than other infants to have been conceived in early autumn 与取样有关 可放入第一个问题
此处错误 特定的25infant ——﹥showed signs of mild distress
——﹥more likely than other infants to have been conceived in early autumn
两个特性之间不能进行互相推理，更不能因时间顺序将其关系改变成
conceived in early autumn——﹥25infant——﹥showed signs of mild distress
5．a time when 这个时期产妇可能还有可能影响胎儿大脑形成与情感有关器官的其他特征，即他因（后面还有成长过程中的他因，成长环境个人经历）。
6．some brain functions 具体是什么，与shyness 是否有关。
7．more than half of these children 参照组的数据，other children中有多少孩子？与他们小时侯的比较。
13，14岁的特殊年龄段 可能会是造成more than half的原因。
8．identified themselves as shy 人们难以自我认知，实际上也许并不。
9．shyness during infancy mild distress等同于shyness？
10．Continues 只在13年后做了一次实验，并不能证明持续性，只证明当时那个时间点。
[ 本帖最后由 kentron 于 2006-7-20 20:21 编辑 ] 刚刚写完的，来交作业了^^
提纲：
1.没有证据显示这些distress一定就是由气味和声音引起
2.如果日照时间减少，M素就会增加，那么M素应该在冬天分泌最多，因此daylight和M素或许没有直接关系（这个我觉得自己没有说清楚）
3.M素对some brain functions的影响是好是坏，会否直接影响shyness等缺乏证据支持
4.每个人对shyness的定义标准不一样，主观的identification似乎没有意义
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=498450&extra=page%3D1%26filter%3Dtype%26typeid%3D103
[ 本帖最后由 apiyo_07 于 2006-7-20 21:46 编辑 ] UP... 感觉确实不太好写的说,不过还是找到四个方面来写
全文
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=498013&extra=page%3D1
提纲
第一，关于实验的问题，可能25个婴儿数量上不够，另外没有对照，a suitable control group，
第二，作者的meature方法有问题，大部分的婴儿对这些刺激都会有反应并不能说明太大的问题。
第三，作者没有说明那个激素和因而害羞之间确实存在关系，仅仅是说这些婴儿多是秋季怀上的，但是是否这种东西能够though pacenta也不知道，而且仅说是对脑功能有影响，那种类多的去了
第四，很多其他的因素会导致害羞，比如环境因素，经历民俗，教育等等。另外作者采用说是孩子自己定位为害羞，也没什么说服力，应该有个questionair比较可靠 偶也占一座，明天自己先改改再发上来。 占座,也看看A的同主题.
完成:
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=499033&pid=1768851326&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid1768851326
=======================================================
题目分析：
论据１：a research of a group of 25 infants 13 years ago showing that these infants will have signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli.
论据２：these infants were more likely than other infants to have been conceived in early autumn, a time when their mothers' production of melatonin-a hormone known to affect some brain functions-would naturally increase
论据３：a follow-up study conducted earlier this year, more than half of these children-now teenagers-who had shown signs of distress identified themselves as shy
结论：(1)increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy (2)and this shyness continues into later life.
这里主要来质疑the line of reasoning:
１．原文作者在论据１，２之间建立的联系是这样的：作者试图把have signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli和a hormone known to affect some brain functions，这里可以有两个方面来削弱这种作者试图建立的联系：
（１） 首先从大前提上质疑，作者的调查只涉及到了２５个婴儿，如果这里质疑样本容量，那只是对论据本身的质疑，可以再进一步，如果样本数目扩大，并且更有随机性的话，那么这个联系是否还成立呢？如果在大样本基础上的调查无法得到这些婴儿大部分都是在early autumn怀孕的话，那么作者后面的一切的论证全部失效，因为这种激素和婴儿的异常反映就无法建立联系．
（２） 质疑这种hormone，虽然它会affect some brain functions，但是是否有足够的证据表明作者所说的这些functions包括对外界的反映呢？
２．作者的论据３明显是对照论据１，２进行的，这里削弱论据３和１，２的联系的最好办法就是攻击它忽略他因：
孤立的来看，作者在earlier this year进行的调查，是否能足够和Thirteen years ago建立联系呢？是否有其他的因素造成了这２５人中的一半identified themselves as shy呢？由于人成长过程中有诸多因素影响，作者无法排除这些诸多的不同点，来建立论据１，２和论据３之间孤立的联系．只要找到合理的一些他因，那么作者建立的这种联系就也被削弱了．
３．最后一点，也是很容易被忽视的一点，就是作者这里有一个明显的偷换！作者把signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli such as an unusual odor or a tape recording of an unknown voice和shyness等同了起来，其实仔细想想，这完全是两码事．这就削弱了作者建立起来的论据１，２和结论的联系．同时还可以继续质疑，是否mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli是婴儿们都具有的反映呢？这一质疑可以放到攻击的第１点里边去．一个mild distress并不是所谓的害羞，那么这个害羞和作者后边提到的shy就更没有关系了，这进一步削弱了作者从论据到结论的推断．
[ 本帖最后由 pewcg8 于 2006-7-21 18:26 编辑 ] 先占个座，回头交作业 交作业
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=499077&extra=page%3D1
提纲：
1结论夸大了研究结果，研究中只提到这些婴儿是在早秋conceived，而早秋褪黑素在母体增加。但结论在时间范围上延长到了整个怀孕期，褪黑素的增加都会起作用。
2文章中没有提供明确的信息证明褪黑素与婴儿紧张的关系。他因指出这些婴儿应在是在相邻的一两年conceied,所以不能排除环境因素。
3第二个结论，成长中的外因影响。因为这些孩子是被跟踪调查，以前的调查对他们有心理暗示作用
[ 本帖最后由 geniego 于 2006-7-21 19:54 编辑 ] 占座
交作业
1 不熟悉的刺激可能会导致所有婴儿有轻微紧张的表现
2 实验中只有25名婴儿作为样本,不科学
3 M激素:(1)影响哪些脑功能?是否和shyness有关
(2)影响谁的脑功能?妈妈的还是婴儿的?
(3)如果和日长有关 为什么不更多在冬天受孕?
4 性格很大程度受后天影响
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=499234&extra=page%3D1
[ 本帖最后由 guochenfu 于 2006-7-22 00:06 编辑 ] 恩，第一次交作业，有点超时。
提纲：
1。study的有效性
2。13年前的study结果不能够说明是hormone导致了shy。
3。同样，follow-study也不能说明结论。（1）shy是children自己认为的。（2）shy很可能不是由于早期的hormone导致的。
TOPIC: ARGUMENT53 - Thirteen years ago, researchers studied a group of 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli such as an unusual odor or a tape recording of an unknown voice.
They discovered that these infants were more likely than other infants to have been conceived in early autumn, a time when their mothers' production of melatonin-a hormone known to affect some brain functions-would naturally increase in response to decreased daylight.
In a follow-up study conducted earlier this year, more than half of these children-now teenagers-who had shown signs of distress identified themselves as shy. Clearly, increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life.
WORDS: 492 TIME: 0:40:00 DATE: 2006-7-22
In this editorial, the author conclude that it is the increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness would go on into their later life. To strengthen this conclusion, the author cites a study held thirteen years ago and a follow-up study conducted earlier this year, however, these studies can not well support the conclusion, and the editorial is based on a series unconvincing assumption and reasoning.
In the first place, the study conducted thirteen years ago was based on a group of 25 infants. From the editorial we get the only information that they are all showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli. However, other basic information, such as their birthday, their sex, and where they are from, was not provided. Moreover, the sample of 25 infants is too short to make the result convincing, for the sample of infants should be sufficient large. Without such information, the conclusion from this study can not be convincing. Moreover, the study should be conducted on a controlled environment, and all relative factors should be considered.
In the second place, even the 25 infants in the first study did statistically represent all of infants, the assumption from the study that the distress of these infants is caused by the increasing melatonin of their mother, is not convincing. First, the author assumes that the melatonin produced by mothers in autumn would surely affect their infants, but he did not cite sufficient evidence to prove it. Second, the author assumes it is melatonin that caused the distress of infant. From the evidence presented, we can only be convincing that the melatonin and distress of infant only has a correlation, not a cause-result correlation. Without sufficient evidence, we can not be convincing as it claims.
In the third place, considering the follow-up study, the editorial has made a series assumption. First, the result of this study was based on self-identified of these children who show signs. But whether a child is shy should be based on an object test or observation, not by child's own thought. Without consider such factors, it is totally possible that the children who identified themselves as shy are not shy in fact. Second, the author also assume that the shy was caused by melatonin when they were conceived. However, there is no evidence to support this assumption. Without sufficient evidence, the shy of these children may be formed after their birth, and was shaped by the society. In short, without necessary evidence to support the assumption, the author can not conclude from the mere suspected follow-up study.
In sum, in the basis of discussion above, the conclusion of this editorial is unconvincing in several aspects. To strengthen it the author should provide more evidence to ensure that these two studies are statistically conducted and their result are well reasoned. Moreover, the author should provide sufficient evidence to support his assumption from these two studies.
[ 本帖最后由 hustmen 于 2006-7-22 16:55 编辑 ]
交作业咯
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=499578&extra=page%3D1 44楼的不要发到这里啊 . http://edu.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=499047&extra=page%3D1交作业！帮改的请留自己的连接哈！互改加油！