Argument53 [【勇往直前】十年之战nbta03

nbta03UID：2326371

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.
WORDS: 431          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-7-29 16:53:44

In the argument, by showing several studies the arguer concludes that shyness during infancy is caused by increased levels of melatonin before birth and this shyness continue into later life. At first glance ,the argument seems to be appealing, while a careful examination reveals how groundless it is.

Firstly, the study of which 25 infants showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli is vague. The study is insufficient to draw a general conclusion. 25 infants maybe is only so a small portion that it can not show the factor of all other infants. Furthermore,  nothing is provided to illustrate that the unfamiliar stimuli leads to distress. Maybe what these infants show is  the uncomfortableness under the stimuli rather than distress or a common infants’ reaction. The arguer should provide some more evidence to make the conclusion convincing.

Secondly, even if infants will be distress under unfamiliar stimuli, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that it has something to do with the melatonin-a hormone known to affect some brain function-would naturally increase in response to decrease daylight.  The arguer points out no evidence to justify these two factors are comparable. The hormone to affect some brain functions does not means that it will cause the distress. At the same way, there are a lot of other probable factors, such as the diets, the living habits, the surrounding of infants, which all could be the cause. The arguer also have to take these relevant factors into account to reach an general conclusion.

Last but not least, the arguer makes a hasty generalization that the teenagers who had shown signs of distress during infancy identified themselves as shy and  this shyness continues into later life. However, we are told no information to trust that the distress results in their shyness. A mount of things could possibly form their shyness during their growth, for example, living environment, parents, campus, society and so on. Moreover, the arguer also fail to substantiate that the shyness will continue into later life without any evidence. A personality is formed during a long period, these teenagers are so young that what they are now does not indicates what they will be for everything is changing.

In sum, the argument lack credibility because the evidence cited does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should provide some more evidence concerning the relation between distress and the hormone. To better evaluate the argument, we need more information about whether the distress and the shyness are relevant.

PudingUID：2364107

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.WORDS: 431          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-7-29 16:53:44

In the argument, by showing several studies the arguer concludes that shyness during infancy is caused by increased levels of melatonin before birth and this shyness continue into later life. At first glance, the argument seems to be appealing, while a careful examination reveals how groundless it is.

Firstly, the study of which 25 infants showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli is vague. The study is insufficient to draw a general conclusion. 25 infants maybe is only so a small portion that it can not show the factor of all other infants. Furthermore, nothing is provided to illustrate that the unfamiliar stimuli leads to distress. Maybe what these infants show is the uncomfortable ness under the stimuli rather than distress or a common infants’ reaction. The arguer should provide some more evidence to make the conclusion convincing.（攻击婴儿到底紧不紧张）

Secondly, even if infants will be distress under unfamiliar stimuli, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that it has something to do with the melatonin-a hormone known to affect some brain function-would naturally increase in response to decrease daylight.  The arguer points out no evidence to justify these two factors are comparable. The hormone to affect some brain functions does not means that it will cause the distress. At the same way, there are a lot of other probable factors, such as the diets, the living habits, the surrounding of infants, which all could be the cause. The arguer also have to take these relevant factors into account to reach an general conclusion.（攻击某素会带来紧张）

Last but not least, the arguer makes a hasty generalization that the teenagers who had shown signs of distress during infancy identified themselves as shy and  this shyness continues into later life. However, we are told no information to trust that the distress results in their shyness. A mount of things could possibly form their shyness during their growth, for example, living environment, parents, campus, society and so on. 这里还要再加深Moreover, the arguer also fail(fails) to substantiate that the shyness will continue into later life without any evidence. A personality is formed during a long period, these teenagers are so young that what they are now does not indicates what they will be for everything is changing. （攻击紧张是否会延续）

In sum, the argument lack credibility because the evidence cited does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should provide some more evidence concerning the relation between distress and the hormone. To better evaluate the argument, we need more information about whether the distress and the shyness are relevant. And the living background of the children.

有个错误可以加上：紧张不一定等于害羞