Argument53 [Jet小组}第五次作业

macross_36UID: 2306285

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.

The conclusion of this argument is that increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life. To justify this conclusion the argument cites that a group of 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress 13 years ago are considered to have been affected by melatonin. Also, the argument points out that melatonin may affect some brain functions and a follow-up study shows these children-now teenagers-who had shown signs of distress identified themselves as shy. I find the argument unpersuasive, for several reasons.

First, the argument provides no evidence that the 25 infants in the research are representative of the overall group of infants who show signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli. Lacking such evidence, it is possible that these 25 infants are chosen in the same hospital. What is more, we can assume that they act mildly because they all have some illnesses mentally. In short, without better evidence that the research is statistically reliable the argument cannot rely on it to draw any firm conclusion.

Second, the argument unfairly assumes that melatonin can affect the infants’ brain functions. Perhaps it affects the brain functions of the infants’ mother rather than the infants and it has no harm to the infants. Without pointing out how the melatonin drives infants abnormally, it is unfair to conclude that such signs of mild distress are due to melatonin.

Third, the argument fails to convince me that the mild distress the 25 infants showed 13 years ago is equal to shyness. I may assume that the infants are excited when exposed to an unusual odor or a tape recording of an unknown voice instead of being shy. Moreover, it is unpersuasive that the argument implies that the infants are still shy when they grow up just because they identify themselves as shy in the follow-up study. Perhaps they are open and frank but they are not aware of the fact. Given these possible scenarios, the research and the follow-up study prove nothing about shyness.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. It would be necessary for the arguer to rule out all the above-mentioned possibilities before we could better assess the argument.

[ 本帖最后由 macross_36 于 2008-2-14 09:59 编辑 ]

dreamstringUID: 2389201

The conclusion of this argument is that increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life. To justify this conclusion the argument cites that(这里不对吧？这是什么从句？我不太懂语法，你看看。是不是应该是cites a XX that？) a group of 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress 13 years ago are considered to have been affected by melatonin. Also, the argument points out that melatonin may affect some brain functions and a follow-up study shows these children-now teenagers-who had shown signs of distress identified themselves as shy. I find the argument unpersuasive, for several reasons.

First, the argument provides no evidence that the 25 infants in the research are representative of the overall group of infants who show signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli. Lacking such evidence, it is possible that these 25 infants are chosen in the same hospital. What is more, we can assume that they act mildly because they all have some illnesses mentally. In short, without better evidence that the research is statistically reliable the argument cannot rely on it(这里it指什么呢？说明一下比较好。这里容易让人误解为指代better evidence。) to draw any firm conclusion.

Second, the argument unfairly assumes that melatonin can affect the infants’ brain functions. Perhaps it affects the brain functions of the infants’ mother rather than the infants and it has no harm to the infants. Without pointing out how the melatonin drives infants abnormally, it is unfair to conclude that such signs of mild distress are due to melatonin.(我觉得这一段有些牵强。正常意义下的理解是能够知道文中所说的就是指影响婴儿的大脑，虽然没有明确指出~~不知我说的对不对)

Third, the argument fails to convince me that the mild distress the 25 infants showed 13 years ago is equal to shyness. I may assume that the infants are excited(这里说的不好。excite是兴奋，而题目已经说了，在这种情况下他们会焦虑紧张，而不是兴奋。所以这里没有你assume他们会excite的余地。你应该重点说，这种焦虑紧张不等于害羞。) when exposed to an unusual odor or a tape recording of an unknown voice instead of being shy. Moreover, it is unpersuasive that the argument implies that the infants are still shy when they grow up just because they identify themselves as shy in the follow-up study. Perhaps they are open and frank but they are not aware of the fact. Given these possible scenarios, the research and the follow-up study prove nothing about shyness.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. It would be necessary for the arguer to rule out all the above-mentioned possibilities before we could better assess the argument.

小小总结一下，我觉得你文笔很好，一点不像第一次写的。就是逻辑，思路上再注意一些就好了。第二段的质疑写的很好，值得学习，我就没想到这一点。

leftkissUID: 2347956

:)
字数：372
The conclusion of this argument is that increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life.（转述good!）To justify this conclusion the argument cites that a group of 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress 13 years ago are considered to have been affected by melatonin. Also, the argument points out that melatonin may affect some brain functions and a follow-up study shows these children-now teenagers-who had shown signs of distress identified themselves as shy. I find the argument unpersuasive, for several reasons.
开头段对argument的论述有点长，但是转述很好！

First, the argument provides no evidence that the 25 infants in the research are representative of the overall group of infants who show signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli. Lacking such evidence, it is possible that these 25 infants are chosen in the same hospital. What is more, we can assume that they act mildly （＋distress） because they all have some illnesses mentally（＋according to the same circumstance）. In short, without better evidence that the research is statistically unreliable the argument cannot rely on it to draw any firm conclusion.

Second, the argument unfairly assumes that melatonin can affect the infants’ brain functions. Perhaps it affects the brain functions of the infants’ mother rather than the infants’ and it has no harm (influence) to the infants. Without pointing out how the melatonin drives infants abnormally, it is unfair to conclude that such signs of mild distress are due to melatonin.

Third, the argument fails to convince me that the mild distress the 25 infants showed 13 years ago is equal to shyness. I may assume that the infants are excited when exposed to an unusual odor or a tape recording of an unknown voice instead of being shy. Moreover, it is unpersuasive that the argument implies that the infants are still shy when they grow up just because they identify themselves as shy in the follow-up study. Perhaps they are open and frank but they are not aware of the fact. Given these possible scenarios（用possibilities，scenario是剧情）, the research and the follow-up study prove nothing about shyness.
这一段有俩个意思，建议分开论述，可以详尽一些

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. It would be necessary for the arguer to rule out all the above-mentioned possibilities before we could better assess the argument.

很简洁，但是最好再把文内的中心重申一下：the arguer 这么做之后会有怎么样的效果……等等

小结：
语言比较流畅，转述不错（这事我欠缺的！）
逻辑清晰,词汇不错
加油～^^

[ 本帖最后由 leftkiss 于 2008-2-16 16:19 编辑 ]