【Flyer杀G作文组】1月22日作业Argument53 by wdvrdx111

wdvrdx111UID: 2870800

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 this argument, the author claims that the increased levels of melatonin would be the source of the shyness and continues the condition into later life of an infant. To support his standpoint, the author provides the results of two certain studies of a group consisted of 25 infants and their adolescents, in which lies the time span of 13 years, along with the relevant information and details about the significant substance-melatonin. These evidences and facts are seemingly plausible to bolster the viewpoint well, though they are undermined by some fallacies and unwarranted assumptions, so is the standpoint. Three reasons are stated as follows.

To begin with, take a scrutiny at the supplementary definition for the melatonin, hardly the author can persuade me that it is the core factor which causes the shyness as the group of infancy reveal. The melatonin is described as "a hormone known to affect some brain functions". Well, what the "some functions" refer to precisely? Perhaps it is a substance which affects how infant smells and listens, instead leads to their deeds which considered as shyness. And it might be shared by most infants, that is to say, other similar chemical elements foster the certain behaviors, not the melatonin.

Secondly, the author assumes that relying on the study took place 13 years ago, the outcomes of the comparisons could be validated so as to extrapolate his standpoint. Nevertheless, the study is apparent in shortage of rigidity and comprehensive contemplations:(i)the author fails to offer the backgrounds of the related infants, therefore barely the results could be guaranteed to be convincing. Perhaps all these selective participants have no factors or elements effecting as the melatonin, thus the observation would turns out to be meaningless, and(ii) the amount of the study object is not representative enough to articulate these relevant phenomena, all the infants might own the same family name or come from a relatively isolated area, so how could we count on the records and data to establish the standpoint matching with a larger scope?

Likewise, the following study implemented in this year cannot convince me that there are correlations existing between the participants and the melatonin. On one hand, the outcome implies that what the teenager's thoughts toward themselves do square with the existence of their shyness. However, without providing authoritative criteria to judge whether these teenagers are actually shy or not, the conclusion is too arbitrary to be convincing on the basis of these ostensible descriptions, because indeed no one could ensure that all of them hold the honesty. On the other, the author ignores the possible changes within the time span. During such long time, even though some of them are influenced by the innate melatonin, there would be possibility that their natures as shyness would be totally altered by other factors of the family and the society, and vice versa.

Finally, even I concede that all foregoing assumptions and evidences are validated, yet the author draws a flawed conclusion. Let us throw light upon the "later life". The hormone has merely generated influences for 13 years, so, would it allow us to deduce to a longer effect? Moreover, the standpoint should depend on more analogous experiments or studies to get well supported. After all, these two studies would be contingent factors so that they cannot underpin it.

In sum, the conclusion is oversimplified and unwarranted. To draw a better one, the author should provide adequate information about the backgrounds of the participants, the detail information during the time span, and a more specific illustration for the hormone. Additionally, I need more experiments and studies in parallel to better assess the conclusion.