[主题活动] [Big Fish]02月28日Argument53--By swolf54 [复制链接]

swolf54
UID：2421931

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 29
寄托币: 1214
注册时间: 2007-11-3
精华: 0
帖子: 5

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-3-2 00:54:03 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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.

In the argument, the arguer reaches the conclusion that increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life. In supporting his argument, he cites an experiment which in conducted thirteen years ago, focusing on a group of 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress. Furthermore, he points out that all these infants were more likely than other infants to have been conceived in early autumn, when mothers' production of melatonin increases. Then, he adds that in the following study, half of these children identify themselves as shy in their teenagers. In terms of me, this argument is not convincing enough for three vital fallacies made by the arguer.
In the first place, the conclusion is based on an experiment concerning 25 infants; however, the number of infants, 25, might constitute an insufficiently small sample to draw a reliable conclusion. Besides, according to the study, those infants show mild distress in the study. Trickily, the in the conclusion, the arguer switch the idea to be shyness. Concerning about these vital fallacies, the argument appears to be inconvincible.
In the second place, the arguer doesn't make a clear cause-effect relationship between melatonin and mild distress. Even assuming the sample size is enough, a direct correlation between the melatonin and distress does not necessarily prove that the former causes the latter. The author must account for other possible reasons such as other hormones may cause the distress of infants, or the specific experimental environment affects the behavior of the infants. Lacking evidence that the melatonin direct makes the infants to be mild distressed, we would not trust whatever the arguer claims.
In the third place, even if the increased amount of melatonin do induces infants to be mild distressed, we still couldn't get the conclusion that this effect will continues into later life. In the follow-up study cited by the arguer, teenagers identified themselves as shy. Nonetheless, identification is not equal to real shyness. It is entirely possible that, in fact, those teenagers who concede themselves to be sky are not sky at all. For they have the courage to concede shyness. Without clearly concept definition and comparison, this argument fails to convince us the third time.
In conclusion, as the three critical errors, the arguer fails to make a sound logic to demonstrate his own argument. In strengthen his position, he need to provide more information about the validity of the experiment and the cause-effect relationship between melatonin and mild distress. Furthermore, he needs to make clear distinguish between shyness and mild distress.

看看有没有问题呀？

取次花丛懒回顾，半缘修道GRE