argument53 【7\8\9\10】AW作文小组 第三次作业

zoubinUID: 2501151

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 arguer claims that raised levels of melatonin (M) can result in shyness during infancy and in later life. In order to bolster this claim, the arguer quotes a study: researchers chose 25 infants who had mild distress and were more probably conceived in early autumn, when their mothers generated relative more M, right now, over half of these children are still feel shy. Whereas, careful scrutiny exposes that this study has some doubtful points and therefore can't provide enough support to the conclusion.

In the first place, an assumption upon which the claim depends is that M has effect on shyness. But the arguer offers no detailed information about M except a hormone known for affecting some brain functions. This evidence is too vague to conclude that M can influence distress, perhaps, its main effect is on thinking of brain. Unless the arguer can give concrete scientific evidence to show this assumption, his conclusion can't be persuasive.

In the second place, the study itself cited in this argument lacks credibility in some respects. For example, researcher only chose 25 infants, which, generally speaking, is insufficient to reflect the whole situation of infants. Besides, the arguer unfairly equates distress with shyness. So it's equally possible that those infants showed mild distress not because of shyness but strangeness. Moreover, the study concludes that over half of those infants are shy now just through their subjective judgment, which might not represent the real circumstances. In short, as having such problems, this study can't sufficiently be used as a proof to demonstrate the arguer's claim.

Besides, the arguer ignores other factors which might undermine the credibility of his claim. For instance, he doesn't tell anything about the concrete information about those infants, such as their families, growing environment and so on, which are also important on the advent of shyness. Without considering these alternative factors, the arguer can't make me support his conclusion.

Last but not least, even if we assume that excessive M can cause shyness during infancy, the arguer also considers this shyness will last in later life, but he provides no evidence to substantiate this claim. Therefore, it’s also likely that the number of M contained in brain will decrease along with the growth of those children. In this case, shyness may not follow with those children for a long time. Since having no relevant evidence, the arguer can’t make such conclusion.

To sum up, as based on a host of doubtful facts, the conclusion can't be convincing as it stands. If the arguer wants to justify his claim, he should give more information to show the concrete effect which M takes on shyness. Also a study with more participators is needed.

野猪大改造UID: 2484392

个人觉得写的很好
漏洞和语言都很好
各个漏洞用力很平均