我关于53题婴儿羞涩的一个逻辑错误，和大家似乎不一样

horminalUID: 2375069

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.

中文提纲：
1，25个人，少，而且随机性没有保证。可能大多数小孩表现和这个相反。
2，可能所有小孩面对unusual odor & unknown voice都会distress。那就不能说这些小孩shy
3，老妈体内melatonin上升不代表小孩melatonin上升。
4，可能老妈体内其他hormone 也上升，因此真正影响shy的不是melatonin
5，可能melatonin它affect some brain functions是影响运算、逻辑推理、记忆力而不是shy
6，一半的小孩可能是13/25个，那么结论就不那么具有压倒性的说服力
7，"identified"自己shy很可能是受到不科学的调查诱导的，因为shy没有给出明确定义
*（没写到）8，可能那个年龄段的teenagers特点就是most of them are shy，那就不能说是melatonin的效果持续到长大了


关键就是4、5、6三点，网上主流似乎都在说“婴儿为何不在冬天出生”，但我觉得这不是主要问题所在。它应该是说：A，婴儿在秋天出生，B，母亲秋天时候melatonin上升。所以，melatonin导致这些婴儿shy。

文章不限时，主要是为了准备模版写的，仅供参考……


The arguer asserts that increased levels of melatonin before birth should be responsible for the shyness during infancy and this shyness would continue into later life. This conclusion is due to a discovery that a group of infants who are apt to show shyness are more likely to be conceived in autumn, when their mothers' production of melatonin increase. And a follow-up study also reveals that more than half of those grown-up infants would identify themselves as shy. Though appears plausible at first glance, this argument is actually fallacious after careful analysis.

A threshold problem with this argument is that the arguer fails to prove the 25 infants participating in the study are enough to represent most infants concerned in the conclusion. It is possible that those infants are particularly chosen from some rural areas where people living there are all conservative and shy. Or perhaps the 25 infants cannot stand for most infants – maybe the study of a larger number of infants would reveal the different result. Without ruling out such possibilities, the argument can only be groundless.

Further, the arguer intends to imply that infants who showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli are surely shy infants; however, this needs not to be the case. According to common sense, and also in consideration of the lack of control group in the study, it is highly possible that mild distress in reaction to unfamiliar odor or unknown voice are just common and reasonable reaction for any infants – even including the brave ones. This alternative explanation of the result of the study, if true, would inevitably damage the underpinning of the whole argument.

Even if the sample of 25 infants is fairly representative and the infants' reaction can be categorized as shyness, the arguer still fails to prove that such shyness should be attributed to the effect of melatonin. Given the mother's increased production of melatonin would surely means the increased melatonin contained in an infant's brain, which is, of course, a suspicious assumption, there are at least two alternatives serve to weaken the argument. On the one hand, the arguer merely mentions that melatonin can affect some brain function; thus, it is possible that melatonin would only affect some functions such as the ability of calculation, the logical analysis, the ability to retain and recall past experiences – which have trivial matter to do with one's shyness. On the other hand, there are potentially many other hormones or certain gene factors which can fairly be responsible for the infants' shyness; thus, the increased level of melatonin can hardly be proved to cause the shyness of the infants.

Finally, the follow-up study is also too general to draw any decisive conclusion from it. The arguer states that "half" of those grown-up infants identified themselves as shy, but it is highly possible that only 13 of the 25 grown-up ones made this identification. This minor excess cannot persuasively lead to the conclusion that the shyness has largely continued into the infants' later life. Besides, the term "identified" begs the question that how this research is conducted. If those teenagers were asked, "Do you think you are shy compared to Martin Ruther King who dared to speak in front of millions of people", there is high possibility that most teenagers, including ones who are not shy at all, would answered they belongs to the shy ones.

In conclusion, the argument lacks credibility because of limited sample of the study, a series of unfair assumptions while analyzing the result of the study, and excessive general description of the follow-up study. The arguer, to make the conclusion more reasonable, needs at least to provide evidence that his/her samples are large and random enough to represent the general situation concerning infants' reaction to melatonin. Moreover, the arguer had better give clear description of "shyness" of both an infant and a teenager to prevent the ambiguity in the results of the studies. Also would be useful of any information more strictly prove the effectiveness and uniqueness of melatonin in resulting the shyness of an infant.