argument053 [米国有米] 2.10

绚烂夏花UID: 2245298

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.

The seeming sound argument draws the conclusion that the increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life. Based on a dubious study and illogical reasoning, the assertion is far from perfect.

To begin with, the validity of the research 13 years ago is questionable. Without detailed information about the sample 25 infants, we have good reason to doubt that they are not representative of all the infants. For example, these infants may come from the same region where infants tend to be more distress on average as a result of the environment. Moreover, what do the researchers mean by "mild" distress?  Is the reaction unusual? We just don't know. Common sense tells us that human beings have the instinct to react to unfamiliar stimuli in order to protect ourselves from harms. Consequently, the reactions of the infants in the research may be just as normal as any infant in the world. However, with concern to these points, the author should give more detailed evidence to make sure that the research did 13 years ago is reliable.


Besides, even if the research 13 years is reliable, still, the author fails to build a causal relationship between the hormone melatonin and the shyness of the infants. On one hand, the author gives no information about the hormone--what are its functions? Who do it wok on, the mother or the infant? Given no detailed information about these aspects, it is unsafe to relate the hormone and the shyness of the infants. In addition, it is highly possible that other factors contribute to the shyness of the  infants. For example, the influence of certain genes should not be overlooked. If the infants succeeded the shy-cause genes from their parents, needless to say they were prone to be shy. Therefore, the relationship between the hormone and the shyness of the infants should be reconsidered.

Finally, granted the shyness of the infants in the research is more shy than average, it is still too early to say the shyness will continue in their later life. The statistic this year cited in the argument is not credible. "More than half of the children ... identified themselves as shy", says the argument. However, what does "more than half" mean? Is the actually number 13? What about the rest children? What if the rest of them claimed to be not shy at all or even too brave? The author fails to provide evidence about it. What's more, even if most of the children are actually shy, it does not indicated that it is a continuance of their infant shyness. Maybe they are just among the normal, if most of the children in the world, say 70 percent, claims to be shy. Also, as we all know, many alternatives can explain the shyness of the children, such as their growing environment, the impact of their parents and the teachers as well as their contemporaries. Without ruling out such and other possibilities, the conclusion is dubious.

After careful consideration, the author lacks both sufficient evidence and precise reasoning to make a sound argument. The author should make a thorough investment into, at least, the aspects mentioned above, thus providing sufficient evidence to make a justified conclusion.