- UID
- 662065
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-8-16
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
2 A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation. The study showed that in stimulating situations (such as an encounter with an unfamiliar monkey), firstborn infant monkeys produce up to twice as much of the hormone cortisol, which primes the body for increased activity levels, as do their younger siblings. Firstborn humans also produce relatively high levels of cortisol in stimulating situations (such as the return of a parent after an absence). The study also found that during pregnancy, first-time mother monkeys had higher levels of cortisol than did those who had had several offspring."
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.
In this argument above, it is well presented yet far-fetched. It lays a claim that the birth order has affect on an individual’s levels of stimulations. To bolster this conclusion, the author advocates that the firstborn infants, no matter monkeys or humans, under stimulating situations, have high levels of cortisol. And the author also points out that the first-time mother monkeys have higher level of cortisol. Nevertheless, from the logically perspective, this argument is in effect hardly convincing me due to several critical flaws after a close scrutiny, albeit it appears credible at a cursory glance.
In the first place, the arguer only take eighteen rhesus monkeys into account. In this situation, the author does not explain how to choose these monkeys to take observation and if the chosen monkeys is the sign of random samplings. However, the arguer offers no evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. If this is the case, the arguer’s reasoning is definitely flawed. Hence, if the author wants to convince me entirely, he must takes some useful information about these monkeys.
In the second place, even if the chosen monkeys are random samplings and a reasonable way to choose them, the argument still maintains ill-conceived. The arguer rests on the further assumption that the high levels of cortisol are due to firstborn infants, both monkeys and humans. To illustrate this point, the author does study that the firstborns are more high cortisol than their younger siblings. However, the author does not supply any evidence to confirm this assumption. It is quite possible that the firstborn infants are bigger than their following sisters and brothers. Thus, without ruling out or accounting for these and other likely possibilities, the arguer cannot bolster the recommendation.
Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out the last flaw in this argument. Even if the evidence turns out to support the forgoing proviso, the first-mothers have high levels of cortisol can not determined. The author just simply jumps to the conclusion that the firstborn may be hit the point. But the author omits to inform us whether there may be some other explains to cause this higher cortisol, such as neverous and so forth about the pregnancy itself.
To sum up, it seems precipitous to jump to the conclusion based on the problematic premises. In order to draw an efficient conclusion, the author ought to reason more convincingly, and take every possible consideration into account. Therefore, if the argument had better evaluated the conclusion, I would need to know how the author excludes the situations I mentioned above.
字数：425
时间：30min
时间很紧，30分钟不包括审题
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-1-28 23:31:29
收藏
收藏
