Argument 53

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: 409 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2008-3-31 21:52:25

In this argument, the speaker claims that increased levels of melatonin before a child's birth will conduce towards shyness throughout this child's lifetime. To support this verdict, the arguer cites a study on a group of 25 infants, conducted by researchers thirteen years ago, who showed somewhat distress when exposed to unfamiliar circumstance. Besides, a follow-up study is also quoted by the arguer to demonstrate the conclusion. However, close scrutiny of evidence unveils that this argument actually suffers from several fallacies, as discussed below.

To begin with, the phenomenon that infants exhibited distress when exposed to an unusual odor or an unknown voice is quite normal. As a fresh life in the world, any one would feel somewhat of tension or nervous while his or her mother is not present. Moreover, this study of a group of 25 infants were held 13 years ago, which might not comply today's outcomes of research. Therefore, the credibility of this study is poorly supported by empirical proof.

Secondly, whether the infants involved in the research 13 years ago were random sampled is unknown. This statement does not refer to any condition of how special these infants were. Perhaps researchers selected those infants who were born in autumn on purpose, which would undermine this statement. In addition, it is equally possible that another chemical also increases in response to declining daylight. The speaker fails to rule out this potential chemical that may be the real reason for those infants' shyness.

Thirdly, the follow-up research conducted earlier this year is quite questionable and is not convincing as the speaker assumes. First, the results of this study are based on self-report. Thus we can not figure out whether these children actually express their inner feelings. It is probable that they had just experienced uninspiring things before they responded to questions in this study. Secondly, these children's shyness may due mainly to parental influence or deeply shaped by their seminal childhood event. In short, without considering these potential factors, the arguer is too cursory to arrive at his or her ultimateness.

To summary, this statement indeed suffers from a few critical flaws, as discussed above. To solidify the conclusion, the speaker would have to demonstrate that infants in the first study were chosen on the foundation of random sampling, and further prove that these infants are not affected by any other things during their maturing. Consequently, we need more detailed information to evaluate this statement.