theol
Member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2020
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Korean
- Home Country
- Japan
- Current Location
- Japan
the writing prompt:
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 essay:
In the letter, several evidences are listed by the writer to support his or her claim that birth order has an effect on an individual’s level of stimulation. Although these clues seem plausible, there are many flaws remained and a variety of significant factors have been overlooked.
The most important character of the experiment dealing with problems in the field of social science is that it must reveal the common condition. Therefore, it is expected to take as many samples as possible in order to exclude biases and errors. However, in this study, the researchers only use eighteen monkeys to arrive at a conclusion, which is far from convincing since it is possible that they pick the ones that are in favor of their conclusion. It is also possible that these eighteen monkeys are different from others. That is why the experiment should not draw a conclusion so hastily.
Meanwhile, the evidence that firstborn infant monkeys react more fiercely than their younger siblings do not necessity that the birth order does play a determining part in it. Many other factors other than the birth order must be considered so that the experiment will be valid. For instance, the researchers should use monkeys who share a similar weight because there is a chance that the weight can influence the amount of hormone cortisol produced. Also, in the light of dissimilar personal characteristics, some monkeys tend to react violently to stimulations while other are calmer. Researchers should be aware of the fact that due to the various extends of maturation, monkeys with different age may respond differently. A large quantity of factors can lead to the phenomena researchers observe, so it is necessary to offer more information about the experiment.
When the study infers that humans have a similar feature like that of monkeys, it is even more unconvincing. Nothing about the research is provided. We do not know how is the study designed, how many people are investigated, and how is the experiment conducted. We cannot preclude the possibility that researchers just deduce from the experiment on monkeys, which makes this conclusion groundless.
Reaching conclusions needs accurate descriptions and considerably designed experiments. Only in this way can the final findings be sound.
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 essay:
In the letter, several evidences are listed by the writer to support his or her claim that birth order has an effect on an individual’s level of stimulation. Although these clues seem plausible, there are many flaws remained and a variety of significant factors have been overlooked.
The most important character of the experiment dealing with problems in the field of social science is that it must reveal the common condition. Therefore, it is expected to take as many samples as possible in order to exclude biases and errors. However, in this study, the researchers only use eighteen monkeys to arrive at a conclusion, which is far from convincing since it is possible that they pick the ones that are in favor of their conclusion. It is also possible that these eighteen monkeys are different from others. That is why the experiment should not draw a conclusion so hastily.
Meanwhile, the evidence that firstborn infant monkeys react more fiercely than their younger siblings do not necessity that the birth order does play a determining part in it. Many other factors other than the birth order must be considered so that the experiment will be valid. For instance, the researchers should use monkeys who share a similar weight because there is a chance that the weight can influence the amount of hormone cortisol produced. Also, in the light of dissimilar personal characteristics, some monkeys tend to react violently to stimulations while other are calmer. Researchers should be aware of the fact that due to the various extends of maturation, monkeys with different age may respond differently. A large quantity of factors can lead to the phenomena researchers observe, so it is necessary to offer more information about the experiment.
When the study infers that humans have a similar feature like that of monkeys, it is even more unconvincing. Nothing about the research is provided. We do not know how is the study designed, how many people are investigated, and how is the experiment conducted. We cannot preclude the possibility that researchers just deduce from the experiment on monkeys, which makes this conclusion groundless.
Reaching conclusions needs accurate descriptions and considerably designed experiments. Only in this way can the final findings be sound.
Last edited by a moderator:
