[a习作temp] argument53 13号考试求评分 [复制链接]

jlmjacky
UID??2471681

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 6
寄托币: 1258
注册时间: 2008-3-16
精华: 0
帖子: 11

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-3-10 19:55:32 |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.
WORDS: 370 TIME: 00:28:00 DATE: 2009/3/10 11:45:07

From a study in thirteen years ago, which is about a group of 25 infants' responses of the stimuli, the author asserts that increased levels of melatonin, a hormone know to affect some brain, before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life. However, this conclusion sounds reasonable at the first glance, there are a series of logical flaws and unsubstantiated evidences which would undermine the assertion seriously.

At the beginning, the whole assertion is established on a study, however, not emphasis in here, only discuss the time. The first research was thirteen years ago, however, the second and also the final research of the respondents was in earlier this year. As all we know, thirteen years could effect a people significantly, especially the infants which are more easily to be changed. The author could not prove the reliability of this conclusion without a long-term study.

In addition, we will discuss the details about the study. The respondents are all infants who showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli. In the premise, the researchers define the infants, who will show signs of distress, yet, not evidence or research could support this assumption. It is possible a physiological response not to a psychological response because the infant is more sensitive than adults.

Further more, the possible influence hormone provided by the author is a thing that would increase in response to decreased daylight, and cause the infants distress. This hormone is their mother produced, and it is not sure that the pregnant women do not accept enough daylight to produce less hormone.

Even assumption, the children are really distress in their childhood, the recently study is unconvincing. The author tells us that they had shown sighs of distress identified themselves as shy, while, this is the subjective responses, without any scientific research. it is highly possible that they have influenced by the researchers and respond incorrect situations.

In summary, this conclusion could not be accepted by such lack of firm evidence and convincing study, if the author want to strongly prove this conclusion, a long-term and more detailed survey of infants with all-side information and thinking about all possibilities is necessary to bolster the argument.