The letter concerns about the contribution of an monkey individual's level of stimulation by the effects of birth order.The reporter argues that first-born individuals produce relatively high level of cortisol in the stimulating situations than their younger siblings. The article might seem tenable in the first glance. However, by careful scrutiny, we could find several flaws contained in the logical reasoning and alternative explanations could be put forward to rival the proposed explanation. To begin with, the author cites an experiment in which eighteen rhesus monkeys were examined and concludes that the study of these monkeys can reflect the actual condition of whole monkeys. However, compared to the total number of monkeys living in the world, eighteen samples is so small that the result of the research accounts turns out to be unconvincing. Without more samples being studied in the research and other correlative evidence, the writer cannot unequivocally states that the recent study mentioned could cast a light on the conclusion. Also, the eighteen monkeys studied by the experimenter are geologically isolated, which all comes from a single residence. Perhaps the rhesus monkeys will biologically unique and the first-born monkeys come from the other places of the world shows the same levels of hormone cortisol production with their younger brothers and sisters, or even relatively less than. For that matter, the arguer cannot reasonably conclude that the study of eighteen rhesus monkeys have certain correlation with the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation. Secondly, the reporter take into account the relatively high levels of cortisol produciton in stimulating situations and compare the phenomenon with that of the rhesus monkeys as have been mentioned. The aurhor fails to consider the other possible differences between the first-born individual and their younger siblings that might help bring about a different reason acounting for the result. For instance, compared with their younger brothers and sisters, first-born humans spend relatively more time with their parents and it is possible that the longer duration of staying together can cause the first-born ones to be more dependable on the parents thus leading to the higher cortisol production when seeing their parents return after an absence. Without ruling out such explanation and other alternative reasoning that might contribute to the same result, the writer cannot convince me that it is the birth order that contribute to the individual's levels of stimulation.
Finally, the argument provide that there being certain correlation between the high levels of cortisol during first-time mother monkeys' pregnancy and that of first-born infant monkeys when facing stimulation situations. However, the correlation might not unequivocally indicates that the former cause the latter. It might be possible that the high level of cortisol of first-time mother monkeys'pregnancy do not affect the high levels of cortisol production of first-born monkey babies. The relatively high levels of cortisol production of first-time monkey mothers' pregnancy may be caused by other alternative reasons. For example, due to the lack of pregnancy experience and being nervous about the impending giving birth to an infant monkey for the first time, the mother monkey may feel nervous and secrete more hormone cortisol. Without thinkng about these alternative explanations, we cannot accept that the high levels of cortisol production of first-time mother monkey when being pregnant having something to do with the relatively high levels of hormone cortisol secretion of first-born monkeys. In conclusion, the correlation between the individual's levels of stimulation and the effects of birth order argued by the article is not well supported. To convince me that the correlation of the two parts do exists, the author shall provide more information which can explicitly indicate that birth order affects the individual's levels of stimulation. Without more evidence, the article seems untenable and unsound.
我觉得lz这篇写的略有些不符合此题要求~~Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument. 我觉得此篇重点应该在alternative explanations
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-12-4 23:33:14
收藏
收藏
