Argument53 [Victors小组]第八次作业 by H-Kevin

H-KevinUID: 2182070

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.

时间：60分钟  字数：486

提纲：

1  25个小孩不能代表全部

2  脑功能不能指代mild distress

3  成长的变化不能忽视，melatonin不是唯一因素

4  signs of mild distress 来自其他因素；远期效应也没有支持

This article argues that increased levels of melatonin in pregnancy period could lead shyness to the whole life of their babies. To support this argument the article cites follow-up study of 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress; melatonin-a hormone known to affect some brain functions; The article also claims that shyness has shown in these infants when they grown up. This argument is flawed in several critical respects.

To begin with, although shyness, found in more than half of these babies, might be relative to the increased level of melatonin, these features are probably not similar to all the infants. So Only 25 infants in this study can not instead all the other babies who probably more deferent in live environment, or even in the genetic reason. Thus I cannot accept the author's sweeping deduction for all infants on this basis.

The article's reliance on the increased level of melatonin is also problematic in two respects. First, there is no evidence present that the some brain functions affected by the melatonin are including mild distress Secondly, the author do not give any support that some brain functions whether in mother or in her infant will be focused on. If the melatonin only effect on mother’s brain functions, no relation existed between melatonin and infant’s signs of mild distress. Thus it is unfair to infer from increased production of melatonin that the brain function of infants would like to change as showing shyness.

Yet another problem with the argument involves follow-up study of these infants. In light of the various growth courses, whether the effect of melatonin produced in pregnancy can follow through on those mild distresses is highly questionable. Absent any explanation of whether the different growth could change the infant’s brain function and psychology, I simply cannot accept the author's argument on the basis of follow-up study.

Finally, although 25 infants showed signs of mild distress, the reason might directly relative to the not melatonin but unfamiliar stimuli such as an unusual odor or a tape recording of an unknown voice. Moreover, author does not provide any material about the further affection of melatonin on these infants. After all, it will be insufficient to infer that this shyness continues into later life. Thus these two points also lends scant support to the recommendation.

In conclusion, the argument is poorly supported. To strengthen it the author must convince me--perhaps by way of a reliable survey--that these 25 infants can cover for all the infants in the different areas. The author must also provide better evidence that the brain function affected by melatonin is charge of mild distress. The author must also explain any other factors raised in the infant’s growth process would not change this affection from pregnancy period. Finally, to better assess the argument I would need to know the related data about whether this effect would lasting in these infants.

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2007-6-11 00:57 编辑 ]

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

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. 时间：60分钟  字数：486 提纲： 1  25个小孩不能代表全部 2  脑功能不能指代mild distress (作者虽然有这种暗示, 但没有指说脑功能就是mild distress, 直接说二者因果不一定就行了, 这个提纲有点specific了) 3  成长的变化不能忽视，melatonin不是唯一因素 (它因是做驳倒错误因果后的补充论证使用的, 不宜单独成段) 4  signs of mild distress 来自其他因素；远期效应也没有支持 This article argues that increased levels of melatonin in pregnancy period could lead shyness to the whole life of their (who?) babies(l论点给了两个影响, 一个长期的一个短期的, 最好概括在一起). To support this argument the article cites follow-up study of 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress; melatonin-a hormone known to affect some brain functions(把文章的元素提炼的很散, 它们之间作者做了什么联系论断?); The article also claims that shyness has shown in these infants when they grown up.(题目中的结论? 论据? 事实? 这个概括出现的位置很尴尬, 不知道跟谁并列, 在文章中你要怎么对待也不太清晰) This argument is flawed in several critical respects. To begin with, although shyness, found in more than half of these babies, might be relative to the increased level of melatonin,(这个是你之后的攻击点, 不要让步) these features are probably not similar to all the infants.(not similiar=not existed? 这里的表达不太清楚, 看不出你想说什么) So Only 25 infants in this study can not instead all the other babies who probably more deferent in live environment, or even in the genetic reason.(这里的展开更加奇怪, 你是要抨击样本大小不够还是MELATONIN跟症状因果不成立?) Thus I cannot accept the author's sweeping deduction for all infants on this basis. (这段的定位有问题, 看不出来对应在提纲的哪个点上, 甚至没说清楚作者的错误到底在哪里) The article's reliance on the increased level of melatonin is also problematic in two respects(how the reliance is establish? 主题句过于笼统, 难以了解你这段的中心论点). First, there is no evidence present that the some brain functions affected by the melatonin are including mild distress(如之前所说, 作者没说MELATINON影响情绪的机能和影响脑功能的机能是一样的. 而且你这个firstly光有论断没有论据, 为什么没有影响? 没论据就一定不成立么? 分析作者的武断判断, 给它因才能使论证成立) Secondly, the author do not give any support that some brain functions whether in mother or in her infant will be focused on.(focus on these to do what? 这点跟作者的中心论点有什么关系么? 这点还是给的很没信息量) If the melatonin only effect on mother’s brain functions, no relation existed between melatonin and infant’s signs of mild distress. Thus it is unfair to infer from increased production of melatonin that the brain function of infants would like to change as showing shyness.(看了最后一句话我觉得你这段应该是想说M不能引起MD, 即错误因果, 但reliance不能代表这个关系, 你的论证中也少有提到, 这跟提纲中第二条的定位不明确也有关系. 在列提纲的时候时刻要注意: 作者的中心论点是什么? 这一点怎么来论证作者的中心论点? 我该怎么对待这一点? 只有建立一个严密的逻辑网才能对题目做出有效的反驳) Yet another problem with the argument involves follow-up study of these infants.(笼统, 主题句应该直接指出作者错误指明论证方向) In light of the various growth courses, whether the effect of melatonin produced in pregnancy can follow through on those mild distresses is highly questionable. Absent any explanation of whether the different growth could change the infant’s brain function and psychology, I simply cannot accept the author's argument on the basis of follow-up study. (感觉跟前面说的东西还差不多, 即因果不成立, 什么其它的growth courses你没说, 为什么因果不一定成立你也没说, 大可以举些可能比如一开始给小孩用的气味才是元凶, 青春期大家都有SHY这是普遍的生理现象没论据表明这批孩子就更SHY等等) Finally, although 25 infants showed signs of mild distress, the reason might directly relative to the not melatonin but unfamiliar stimuli such as an unusual odor or a tape recording of an unknown voice. Moreover, author does not provide any material about the further affection of melatonin on these infants.(一段开始一个论点刚提出还没论证马上又跟了一个完全不一样的点, 这样的话本段的逻辑就很成问题, 你要说的是什么问题? 而且有种前面的论点重合的感觉) After all, it will be insufficient to infer that this shyness continues into later life. Thus these two points also lends scant support to the recommendation. In conclusion, the argument is poorly supported. To strengthen it the author must convince me--perhaps by way of a reliable survey--that these 25 infants can cover for all the infants in the different areas. The author must also provide better evidence that the brain function affected by melatonin is charge of mild distress. The author must also explain any other factors raised in the infant’s growth process would not change this affection from pregnancy period. Finally, to better assess the argument I would need to know the related data about whether this effect would lasting in these infants.

总评: 感觉LZ的主要问题是在破题上, 提纲列的难以分出层次, 导致每个点攻击都找不到方向, 所以哪个点都没有很有效的论据和论证, 以至于要攻击作者的什么结论都不清楚, 看下来让人感觉不知所云, 有大量很模糊的信息和指代. 建议参考下https://bbs.gter.net/thread-498072-1-1.html, 了解下ARGUMENT的破题思路, 先从提纲写作做起, 把ARGUMENT错误类比, 攻击点组织方法掌握, 然后再进一步熟悉论证过程 加油~

jennetrjUID: 2275453

提纲：

1  25个小孩不能代表全部

2  脑功能不能指代mild distress

3  成长的变化不能忽视，melatonin不是唯一因素

4  signs of mild distress 来自其他因素；远期效应也没有支持

This article argues that increased levels of melatonin in pregnancy period could lead shyness to the whole life of their babies. To support this argument the article cites follow-up study of 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress; melatonin-a hormone known to affect some brain functions; [ 此句突然出现有些摸不到头脑] The article also claims that shyness has shown in these infants when they grown up. This argument is flawed in several critical respects.

To begin with, although shyness, found in more than half of these babies, might be relative to the increased level of melatonin, these features are probably not similar to all the infants. [LZ的ARGUMENT 中这句话出处是哪里，为何如此执着]So Only 25 infants in this study can not instead all the other babies who probably more deferent in live environment, or even in the genetic reason. Thus I cannot accept the author's sweeping deduction for all infants on this basis.

The article's reliance on the increased level of melatonin is also problematic in two respects. First, there is no evidence present that the some brain functions affected by the melatonin are including mild distress Secondly, the author do not give any support that some brain functions whether in mother or in her infant will be focused on. If the melatonin only effect on mother’s brain functions, no relation existed between melatonin and infant’s signs of mild distress. Thus it is unfair to infer from increased production of melatonin that the brain function of infants would like to change as showing shyness.

Yet another problem with the argument involves follow-up study of these infants. In light of the various growth courses, whether the effect of melatonin produced in pregnancy can follow through on those mild distresses is highly questionable. Absent any explanation of whether the different growth could change the infant’s brain function and psychology, I simply cannot accept the author's argument on the basis of follow-up study.

Finally, although 25 infants showed signs of mild distress, the reason might directly relative to the not melatonin but unfamiliar stimuli such as an unusual odor or a tape recording of an unknown voice. Moreover, author does not provide any material about the further affection of melatonin on these infants. After all, it will be insufficient to infer that this shyness continues into later life. Thus these two points also lends scant support to the recommendation.

In conclusion, the argument is poorly supported. To strengthen it the author must convince me--perhaps by way of a reliable survey--that these 25 infants can cover for all the infants in the different areas. The author must also provide better evidence that the brain function affected by melatonin is charge of mild distress. The author must also explain any other factors raised in the infant’s growth process would not change this affection from pregnancy period. Finally, to better assess the argument I would need to know the related data about whether this effect would lasting in these infants.

看了LZ的第二篇A，觉得与若干周之前我看到的H-Kevin的文风有很大不同，两篇A同一模板，不妥之处也相同，版主的修改已经非常详细，我有强烈同意！

H-KevinUID: 2182070

谢谢楼上两位的修改，其实这篇文章我过于硬套一个模板了，所以弄得太散