Argument53 Thrive小组第6次作业 求拍

vic_rainUID: 2304309

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: 429          TIME: 00:40:46          DATE: 2008-2-17 下午 12:56:08

This argument concludes that melatonin's increase before birth make infants more shy and this shyness continues into later life. To justify this conclusion, the author cites a study in thirteen years ago showing that a group of 25 infants who conceived in early autumn when their mother's production of melatonin increase showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli, and cites another study that half of these children-now teenagers- had also shown their shyness. Nevertheless, close scrutiny of this argument reveals several flaws, which renders it unconvincing.

First, these infants being studied in thirteen years ago doesn't necessarily indicate that their shyness are due to the increased production of melatonin before birth. In some scenarios, such as the baby's healthy problems, living environment, these infants' response is normal. As this study conducted thirteen years ago, these scenarios are entirely possible. Also, these unfamiliar stimuli might be so strong that showing signs of mild distress for infants is a natural phenomenon. Since the author hasn't identified the real cause of these infants being shy, the author cannot rely on it to attribute to increased production of melatonin.

Secondly, even if I were to concede that increased production of melatonin caused the 25 infants showing signs of mild distress, the author unfairly assumes that 25 infants are statistically reliable to generalize all the infants as a group. As all we know, male or female, black or white, different infants are absolutely about to show different signs when exposed to the same unfamiliar stimuli. Lacking enough evidence that the studied infants are representative of all other infants in the world, I cannot be convinced.

Thirdly, the study that more than a half of these children identified themselves shy does not necessarily indicate a sufficient result for this shyness continuing into later life. Although a half seems significant, the actual level of the proportion might nevertheless be very normal, even low, especially considering the age range of these children. Perhaps these children wouldn't be shy any more when they are older. Without ruling out these possibilities, I remain to be unconvinced.

In sum, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To make it more logically acceptable, the author must supply evidence that the result of the 25 infants and the follow-up children showing signs of shyness attribute to the increased production of melatonin, not any other factors. To better evaluate this argument, the author also should justify that the studied infants and children are representative of the whole people as a whole, and that the proportion of children being shy is statistically enough.