Intern
Joined: 31 Jan 2012
Posts: 2
Location: Italy
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GPA: 3.5
AWA - Analysis of an Argument
[#permalink]
24 Mar 2015, 05:52
Could someone please rate this essay? Thanks in advance!
The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a scientific journal.
"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.
MY RESPONSE
The following argument could be weakened by a number of reasons and principally by the fact that the study is based on rhesus monkeys and results are then used for humans, assuming that both brains work the same. Further, the effects extrapolated from firstborn infant monkeys are applied to older (but still younger) exemplars, without specifying age, relationships and the variety of other factor impacting these animals during growth age.
We know that the research concerns an empirical study on monkeys, showing that firstborn individuals produce up to twice as much of the hormone cortisol. We actually do not know anything more about the study involved. For example, how many firstborn monkey individuals represent the sample on which these results have been derived? What were the conditions in which these monkey exemplars were examined? For example, a situation in which the animal is stressed could lead to a different research outcome. In order to be sure of a certain result, one should definitively test the same examination under all possible scenarios. This is because we all know in science that many factors could be the influence of the same effect.
Then the argument follows stating that younger siblings show the same high level of activities. While this is a very vague idea of what these effects might be, the thesis clearly assumes that the source of this undefined effect is the same. That is, as infant monkeys grow this high level of cortisol production are generated by the same cause. Obviously, there could be a number of other factors impacting monkeys ‘activity levels during growth years. A much better comparison should have first of all illustrated the age phases in which these activity levels are registered to be the same; further, the analysis should have shown that the comparable activity levels are directly linked to the production of cortisol and that this excessive production occur under the same external conditions.
Finally, the argument tries to apply the results extrapolated from the monkeys study to humans ‘behavior. Now, given the fact that all the test conditions aforementioned before should be met in order to assess whether the comparison can be made or not, the test clearly ignore the fundamental and not proven difference between the two type of brains. In fact, to be certain of such a proposition, one should firstly be sure that the two kinds of animals have the exact same type of brain.
To conclude, because the study presented does not provide enough evidence on the thesis showed and leaves many unanswered questions on the way the test itself is carried out, it fails to demonstrate that the order of stimulation follows the indicated structure