[a习作temp] 【kaleidoscope】第六次作业Argument53 by Atticuswang [复制链接]

atticuswang
UID: 2663189

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 264
注册时间: 2009-7-10
精华: 0
帖子: 5

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-8-11 23:41:57 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

In this argument, the author concludes that the increased levels of melatonin-a hormone known to affect some brain functions-before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life. To support his conclusion, the author cites a study to show that infants who showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli were likely to have been conceived in early autumn. In addition, the author also points in the follow-up study that these children showed signs of distress. However, I find the there are several fallacies in this argument, as discussed below.

To start with, the study on 25 infants the author cites is unconvincing as a result of insufficient samples. At least this study should cover infants from different regions, different colors, even different sexes, yet the author fails to mention that. Perhaps male and female infants have different growing process. The authors should ensure all these are taken into consideration into the study, or it will not be representative and we can draw no conclusion from.

Moreover, it is presumptuous for the author to attribute the signs of mild distress to the decrease of melatonin of infants when they are exposed to unfamiliar stimuli. Even if these infants were more likely to have been conceived in early autumn, yet this might be just a coincidence. The author fails to give consideration to other aspects, such as genetic factor or the health conditions of the mothers. Few will dispute that heredity plays an important role in fetuses' growth. Therefore, it is possible that the parents affect their children's behavior. Without ruling out this factor, I strongly doubt whether it is melatonin that leads to signs of mild distress.

In addition, even if the increase of melatonin level before birth causes shyness, yet the assumption that this will continue in the children's later life is unreliable at all. According to the author, it seems that the result of the follow-up study demonstrates this assumption, yet the author ignores some other factors that affect children's characters, such as family education and living circumstances, which are even more important compared with inborn nature. A shy child can be induced to grow up as a gregarious one while outgoing parents may have a son who likes playing alone. Hence it is unnecessary that an infant continues to be shy all the time when he/she grows up.

To sum up, the author's conclusion is arbitrary and to bolster his view, more evidence is required. First a study of large coverage of infants is needed to give convincing results. Moreover, the author should make sure what the exact cause of the infants' signs of mild distress. Last but not least, some other issues should be taken into account when considering whether the shyness in the early year will continue into later life.