Argument53 同主题第四期作业 互相拍来拍去

DennisWangUID: 2212771

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.
(453Words)

By citing the evidence that a kind of hormone--melatonin produced by mother would affect some brain functions, the arguer concludes that this chemical substance will lead to the distress of infants, and such effect would continues into later life. However, this argument depends on several unsubstantiated assumptions and has some fallacies.

In the first place, the arguer fails to provide the evidence that how the researchers decided that those infants showed signs of mild distress. We all know that infants have no capability to control their action and expression. Moreover, the arguer did not establish the relationship between the infants' distress and the effect of melatonin produced by their mothers. The definition of distress should be not as same as shyness, thus, even if the arguer considers that the infants do show the signs of distress, it is not reasonable to claim that increased levels of melatonin before birth cause the shyness during infancy.

Admittedly, if those 25 infants showed the signs of distress and such distress is equal to the shyness, the arguer unfairly assumes that it is the melatonin that causes the effects to the infants. The arguer shows that melatonin is a kind of hormone produced by mother but the infant itself. Does the melatonin get inside the body of infant? Or, how does the melatonin affect the brain of infants? The arguer fails to provide such proof that melatonin--a production of mother--is able to affect the infants directly. Further more, it is not sure that early autumn is a time when daylight decreased, and such season can lead to mother's production of melatonin naturally increasing.

Even if we are granted that melatonin produced by mother has the effects that make infants shy, the arguer fails to convince us that shyness during infancy will contribute to their later life. The fact that those teenagers showed signs of distress identified themselves should not be scientific evidence, and within it, there are factors of subjectivity. More, the factors that lead to their changes of characters are not only the effect of melatonin during their infancy, but also have some other possibilities such as those widely admitted by the public, their life style, education, interests, communication, customs of family members and the circumstance around them. Besides, it is not convincible that the shyness is identified by themselves for the reason that the standard of shyness are different form each person.

To sum up, without sufficient evidence the arguer can not convince me that the chemical matter melatonin produced by mother has the capability to effect infant's character and such effect could continue in their later life. And there are also some other fallacies mentioned above weaken the arguer's conclusion and made it even more inconvincible.

helpmyselfUID: 2224452

By citing the evidence that a kind of hormone--melatonin produced by mother would affect some brain functions, the arguer concludes that this chemical substance will lead to the distress of infants, and such effect would continues[单数] into later life. However, this argument depends on several unsubstantiated assumptions and has some fallacies.

In the first place, the arguer fails to provide the evidence that[that去掉,后面的直接做同位语]how the researchers decided that those infants showed signs of mild distress. We all know that infants have no capability to control their action and expression. Moreover, the arguer did not establish the relationship between the infants' distress and the effect of melatonin produced by their mothers. [感觉这一点是下一段的攻击对象吧]The definition of distress should be not[not be]as same as shyness, thus, even if the arguer considers that the infants do show the signs of distress, it is not reasonable to claim that increased levels of melatonin before birth cause the shyness during infancy.

Admittedly, if those 25 infants showed the signs of distress and such distress is equal to the shyness, the arguer unfairly assumes that it is the melatonin that causes the effects to the infants. The arguer shows that melatonin is a kind of hormone produced by mother but [not] the infant itself. Does the melatonin get inside the body of infant? Or, how does the melatonin affect the brain of infants? The arguer fails to provide such proof that melatonin--a production of mother--is able to affect the infants directly. Further more, it is not sure [certain] that early autumn is a time when daylight decreased, and such season can lead to mother's production of melatonin naturally increasing.

Even if we[it] are granted that melatonin produced by mother has the effects that make infants shy, the arguer fails to convince us that shyness during infancy will contribute to their later life. The fact that those teenagers showed [showing] signs of distress identified themselves [as shy]should not be scientific evidence, and within it, there are factors of subjectivity. More, the factors that lead to their changes of characters are not only the effect of melatonin during their infancy, but also have [改成there are前后主语不一致]some other possibilities such as those widely admitted by the public, their life style, education, interests, communication, customs of family members and the circumstance around them[感觉应该说具体一些]. Besides, it is not convincible that the shyness is identified by themselves for the reason that the standard of shyness are different for each person[最后这条感觉应该与该段第二句结合起来].

To sum up, without sufficient evidence the arguer can not convince me that the chemical matter melatonin produced by mother has the capability to effect infant's character and such effect could continue in their later life. And there are also some other fallacies mentioned above weaken the arguer's conclusion and made it even more inconvincible.[第二句有点罗嗦吧]

总体感觉不错，就是有点小fallacy:)，楼主加油!
欢迎回拍，我的链接：
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

suremanUID: 2303461

The article concludes that increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness which can continue into later life. To support this, the author cites 2 studies. Both of the studies suffer from certain statistical and other problems, which render the conclusion based upon them unpersuasive.
One crucial problem is that the two studies were limited to a sample pool of only 25 infants.  For any statistical study to be reliable, the sample must be large enough. Apparently we cannot rely on what the 25 infants show to draw any solid conclusion. And the author also fails to provide any information about whether the 25 infants chosen were representative of the general condition of the infants or not.  The article only describes that the infants showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli. Yet common sense tells us most of the infants would show their reaction to such stimuli. Without clear information that these 25 infants were different from other infants, this statement still leaves the studies to be untenable at best.

Even if the studies themselves were to be reliable in statistical terms, the author relies on the fallacious assumption that because the infants were more likely conceived in the time when the melatonin in their mother's bodies would increase, and the melatonin is known to have some effect on brain functions, thus, the infants' shyness were due to the melatonins' increase. To begin with, the article fails to give us more information about how the melatonins will affect the brain functions. Without such information, it's highly possible that the M can on the contrary resist or depress the shyness function of the brain. If this is the case, then the whole article will lose its stand.  And the article also overlooks the possibility that shyness could be caused by a myriad of other factors, such as the family atmosphere of the infants,the climate environment, and so on. Without accounting for such and other factors that may also affect the infants, the author can not safely draw any conclusion that the M is the root cause.
In the second study, more than half of the children "identified themselves as shy". The subjective words show that maybe they are not shy actually. As a matter of fact, maybe most of the teenagers, be they from the 25 infants or not, would identify themselves as shy. Without more comparison with other group of teenagers, we cannot tell that the shyness is still continuing, let alone that the effect of M is still continuing.

In sum, the article unfairly assumes that since the infants were born at the time M will increase, so the M is the only explanation for the shyness. To convince me of the conclusion, the author has to preclude other factors that might have affected the infants to be shy. To better assess the conclusion, we have to know if the other teenagers also identify themselves as shy, and other evidence that the infants grew up with the shyness all along in the 13 years.