[题目]
53.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.
[题目分析]
此题目虽然前面的前提、假设等看来比较繁琐，但是结论还是很好找到的，就是最后一句话：Clearly, increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life.即本文论断：出生前某素的高含量会使婴儿害羞，而且这种害羞会继续。
Now, let’s begin.(废话真多啊，嗯，不知道今天各位那里天气如何？)
1.前提1：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.
分析：简要的说，这就是一个最明显的survey错误。首先我们可以说此调查毫无可信力。
A. 首先样本不够，可能其他的大部分孩子都活的白白胖胖的。
B. 其次随机度不够，也许25个不幸的孩子是由于某种特殊生长环境造成的，医疗设备比较差，健康状态不好。或者也许是当时护理比较差，出生以后婴儿的照顾不够好而造成休息不好啊压力上升阿或者总是关在一个特别的环境里等原因。
C．就算害羞也可能是自然反应，成年人对于特别气味等东西都有一定程度的反应，何况是小白的婴儿。
2.推论1：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.
分析：此论断忽略了一个前提，就是某素是否会导致婴儿害羞。论者没有提供任何对某素的科学研究，以说明某素的功能或是作用是什么。论者甚至没有提供资料证明某素是否会对婴儿产生影响。虽然论者说某素是一种对某些大脑功能有影响的荷尔蒙，但并没有告诉我们这种影响是对母亲，还是对胎儿。因此论断的论据没有说服力。
A．首先，仅仅是说明more likely是。可能还有其他没有调查出来的原因比如说其他元素，DNA缺陷等等。因此，某素是否有效成疑。
B．其次，就算某素的确有效。也许它的益处大于坏处。是药3分毒嘛。不能说任何东西有缺陷就一定不是好的。
3.前提2：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.
分析：在跟踪研究中，论者没有提供有关这些孩子在这十几年里的生活环境的资料，我们不能排除环境对孩子性格的影响。性格的形成有很多原因，后天的环境与经历也非常重要。
A．首先，孩子们可能在婴儿时期并不害羞（虽然被调查结论假定为害羞），而是由于后天的经历（比如说失恋，失学，失去人生理想，失去活下去动力。又扯远了呵呵）造成的。
B．其次，调查过程中可能调查者有意隐瞒了the opposite ones.可能当初很多害羞的婴儿，长大后很brave,open,bright什么的。而且可能这个比例在当初调查的样本里很高。反而说明了某素的好处。
1 the experiment is not persuasive
2 even if the experiment is valid, the arguer fals to rule out other factors leading to the shyness of the infants
3 moreover, there is no evidence to show that the shyness will continue to exist in the next few years
Outline:
1.The survey’s result lacks credibility.
2.The arguer fails to establish a casual relationship between increased levels of melatonin and signs of mild stress in the infants.
3.The arguer fails to rule out other factors that might have caused shyness in the surveyed infants.
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。
=======================================================
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．
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.
来得晚了些，来拍
outline:
A: the survey lack representibility.
B: over generalize the melatonin's role
C: teenagers' mental conditions may have other factors https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=509314&extra=page%3D1作者: Vivi_Mimi 时间: 2006-8-8 12:04:58