Argument53 [mettle小组]第七次作业by yaoqian0424

yaoqian0424UID: 2323517

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: 297          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-7-12 下午 04:03:24

The arguer accesses to the conclusion that the increased levels of melatonin(M) before birth would lead to the shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life, which depends on scientific research of the 25 infants and the follow-up study 13 years afterward. This assertion seems reasonable at the first sight. However, it relies on a series of unproven evidence and thus is unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the most apparent fallacy that the arguer commits is that he fails to provide sufficient evidence to persuade us M is the very reason to cause the shyness of infants. Though M can impact some brain functions, the arguer even dose not figure out if M would have effect on mother or her fetus. The possible case is that mother may suffer form this hormone and her fetus may be immunized to M. Even if we concede the possible effect would be addressed to infants, the arguer still unable to convince us that it is M that responsible for the timid performance of those infants for there is no information available about the exact process of such functional mechanism in the infants brains. Thus we have a good reason to assume that M may have other form of effects on infants such as optimistic attitude or inclination to sadness rather than shyness. For that matter, their so-called shy behavior may not attribute to M. Simply put, lacking detailed information about the function of M, the arguer's conclusion is highly suspicious.

Another flaw that weakens the logic of this argument is regarding the credibility of the scientific research about 25 infants conducted 13 years ago and the follow-up study managed earlier this year. Firstly , the arguer can not lent compelling evidence to confirm us that the mild distress, performed by 25 infants when exposing them to unfamiliar stimuli such as an unusual odor or a tape of recording of an unknown voice, is a good represent of shyness. Other possibilities go that the infants involved in the test may show physical unease which lends no direct link to shyness. On the other hands, the follow-up study provide no information about the family condition of those infants as well as the growing environment of them during the 13 years. As we all know, the genetic factors and the living conditions can both influence the development of a child's characteristic and personality. That means, maybe the children’s sense of shyness may come from the genetic heritage or living environment without any relationship with M. Therefore, the unreliable results drawn by these two researches lent poor support to the effect of M on infants.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out another fallacy regarding the samples collected by the researchers. The total amount of 25 children involved in this study is too limited to be informative. Neither dose the arguer provide the information concerning whether the infants can be representative of all infants, nor something about the age, gender, health condition of those infants. Without above mentioned details about infants, we can not fully depend on the results inferred by this study.

In sum, the argument is in shortage of valid date and information that can bolster its assertion. The arguer should investigate in the exact function of M and its mechanism to impact on infants as well as offer the sufficient information about the living environment of the infants and their family conditions, besides, involve more infants with definite information about gender, age, and health conditions and so on.

[ 本帖最后由 yaoqian0424 于 2007-7-12 20:34 编辑 ]

happyhappypigUID: 2342810

The arguer accesses to the conclusion that the increased levels of melatonin(M) before birth would lead to the shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life, which depends on scientific research of the 25 infants and the follow-up study 13 years afterward.restate题目,但是觉得这一句话有点长了 This assertion seems reasonable at the first sight. However, it relies on a series of unproven evidence and thus is unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the most apparent fallacy that the arguer commits is that he fails to provide sufficient evidence to persuade us M is the very reason to cause the shyness of infants. Though M can impact some brain functions, the arguer even dose not figure out if M would have effect on mother or her fetus. The possible case is that mother may suffer form this hormone and her fetus may be immunized to M这里有点没看懂,mother suffer from M和fetus immunized to M是并列关系?读起来怪怪的,how about " mother may suffer from the hormone whereas her fetus are quite fine with its presence, 哦,原来我是觉得这个immune怪怪的,呵呵. Even if we concede the possible effect would be addressed to infants, the arguer still unable to cannot convince us that it is M that responsible for the timid performance of those infants for there is no information available about 去掉about 换成 to support 怎么样? the exact process of such functional mechanism in the infants brains. Thus we have a good reason to assume that M may have other form of effects on infants such as optimistic attitude or inclination to sadness rather than shyness. For that matter, their so-called shy behavior may not attribute to M. Simply put,不需要逗号这里 lacking detailed information about the function of M, the arguer's conclusion is highly suspicious.

Another flaw that weakens the logic of this argument is regarding the 可以去掉 credibility of the scientific research about 25 infants conducted 13 years ago and the follow-up study managed earlier this year后面这些都可以去掉. Firstly , the arguer can not lent compelling evidence to confirm "the result that"  not us us that the mild distress, performed by 25 infants when exposing them to unfamiliar stimuli such as an unusual odor or a tape of recording of an unknown voice, is a good represent of shyness. Other possibilities go that the infants involved in the test may show physical unease which lends no direct link to shyness. On the other hands, the follow-up study provide no information about the family condition of those infants as well as the growing environment of them during the 13 years. As we all know, the genetic factors and the living conditions can both influence the development of a child's characteristic and personality. That means, maybe the children’s sense of shyness may come from the genetic heritage or living environment without any relationship with M. Therefore, the unreliable results drawn by these two researches lent poor support to the effect of M on infants.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out another fallacy regarding the samples collected by the researchers. The total amount of 25 children involved in this study is too limited to be informative. Neither dose the arguer provide the information concerning whether the infants can be representative of all infants, nor something about the age, gender, health condition of those infants. Without above mentioned details about infants, we can not fully depend on the results inferred by this study. 这段略显单薄

In sum, the argument is in shortage of valid dated data and information that can bolster its assertion. The arguer should investigate in the exact function of M and its mechanism to impact on infants as well as offer the sufficient information about the living environment of the infants and their family conditions, besides, involve more infants with definite information about gender, age, and health conditions and so on.besides后面应该是完整的一句话,这里好像没有主语,呵呵

整体感觉不错啊,感觉有一个小瑕疵就是lz retate题目或者题目中的条件或者evidence的时候总是引用了太多的信息,这样句子会变得很长,读者容易lost,另外虽然占篇幅但是感觉也耽误了时间,影响了真正的论述,我觉得如果最后一段再充实一点会更好,呵呵

yaoqian0424UID: 2323517

谢谢happyhappypig 的修改，写完这篇和你的一对比论证显得很苍白，条例也不够清晰，也苦于词乏，最近写Argument老不在状态，可能是中间几天没写的缘故吧，我再回去好好改改