[Big Fish] Argument053 by Greeky

greekyUID: 2605662

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.

Grounding on a unwarranted causal relationship between the infants` distress and their mums` increasing in production of melatonin-a hormone ,and based on a follow up study showing that half of these children had shown signs of distress identified themselves as shy.,The arguer justify the assertion that increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness
continues into later life. Nonetheless,the assertion suffers from several substantial logical flaws.

First of all,the arguer`s assertion relies on a assumption what might be a poor on--he observes an correlation between the fact that a small group of infants showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli and the fact that  their mothers' production of melatonin-a hormone known to affect some brain functions-would naturally increase in response to decreased daylight,then concludes that the former event should be a response to the later one. However, it is entirely possible that the infants` distress is caused by other reasons--such as the environment when they were birthed or just influenced by their mums` live habit. Or perhaps they were affected by their fathers ,to some extent. Without ruling out possible explanations such as those discussed above,the arguer cannot justifiably conclude the assertion that it is the moms` hormone that affected the infants.

Moreover, the arguer neglected to provide detailed information associated with the procedure of the survey. Additionally,the number of the volunteers--25,in itself,does not suffice to ensure the representativeness.  If the samples only include women with similar age or health condition it would no doubt indicates that the result only applies to people with the similar conditions. Or perhaps the the infants were tested in a false way,thus the result lacks representatives. The result of the recent study is unacceptable unless the arguer offered more details.

Finally,the arguer`s recommendation that this shyness continues into later life resets on a assumption that the conditions of the infants would keep the same in different times. Nonetheless,the arguer does not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the recommendation.

It is entirely possible that the children will be not so shy in the future because children always are different from what they were when they were very young. Without accounting for the possibilities such as these,the arguer cannot conclude that the infants would be shy all their life time.

All in all. To make the argument more convincing the arguer need to provide more information regarding the details of the survey and the evidence cited to illustrate the conclusion that the infants would be always shy. If the argument had included the factors discussed above,it would have been more logically acceptable.