Argument53【StruggleToTriumph】by_Letitia 2011.1.2

Letitia_DUID: 2970714

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.

In the argument, the arguer concludes that increased level of a hormone named melatonin before birth causes shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life. To justify the conclusion, the arguer points out an study of 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress exposed to unfamiliar stimuli. Also, the arguer justifies the results of a study of these teenagers who had shown signs of distress identified themselves as shy. However, careful scrutiny reveals a series of logical flaws which render it wholly unpersuasive.

The threshold problem of the argument involves the study reliability that the 25 samples did not sufficient to represent the all condition of the infants. The smaller the sample, the greater possible the biased survey. It is perhaps that such infants had the same condition of the mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar and happened to be conceived in early autumn, but it did not reflect whole infants as the sample is too small to be believed considering the entire infants amount. Also, the arguer fails to show any information about the researchers and how the studies did. Without such more details about the survey, I am hard pressed to believe what the arguer's reasons are no longer flaws.

In addition, the follow up study conducted earlier this year is not sufficient to demonstrate that increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy. Even if these two factors have a correlation, in itself it is suffice to show that the one cause the other. Perhaps other factors such as some other hormones, the eating habit of the pregnancy mother and the grow environment of the children can result in the shyness of these teenagers. Without these possible explanations of the result, the arguer can not concludes that increased level of melatonin is the contributing cause, or even primary cause of the shyness.

Moreover, the arguer unfairly assumes that this shyness will continue into these teenagers' later life. Granted that these people are actually shy in their early life, but there is no information to demonstrate that such character will continue. It is possible that the teenagers can be changed by the family environment or by the education of the society. So there is no one can come to a conclusion only based on the current condition but giving no consideration of the development.

To sum up, the arguer has not convinced me by jumping to a conclusion that cannot hold up to analysis. To bolster it, the arguer must show more details of the study and the convinced evidence of the causal relationship. Only by these information showing by the arguer, can we evaluate the argument..