The Writer of the argument makes a strong conclusion about the positive effect of birth order on individual’s levels of stimulation based on a study of eighteen rhesus monkeys. However, the conclusion is based on a number of premises that can be accounted for in other ways as well.
First and fore most, the editorial’s author mentions a study on eighteen rhesus monkeys, yet fail to explain whether the sample studied is representative of the larger population or not. For that matter, the conclusion is not convincing in its current form. As you know, in research studies, the larger and more representative the sample of study, the more reliable and valid the findings are. Without solid explanations that the sample used in the argument was representative of the larger population, the findings of such a study is neither reliable nor valid.
Even assuming that the sample used in the study was representative, the conclusion is based on another crucial assumption that no other factors affecting the amounts of hormone, which are produced by the monkeys, are present. Absent any evidence that this is the case, I cannot accept the conclusion. The writer of the argument must supply concrete explanations regarding the fact that high levels of cortisol might have been caused by other factors that were not considered in the study. Perhaps, the firstborn monkeys produced more hormones due to sexual desires or some environmental factors at the time of birth regardless of the birth order. Or maybe the mother’s body caused the increase in the production of hormones, not the stimulation. In short, without ruling out these and other possible scenarios, the conclusion lack any merit whatsoever.
Finally, the argument relies on a false analogy between humans and monkeys that human also produce relatively high levels of cortisol in stimulating situations. In order for monkeys to act as a model or reference for humans to draw similar scientific conclusions, the writer of the argument must explain that all the factors involving the stimulation and production of hormones in humans and monkeys are otherwise essentially the same. However, the writer of the argument does not offer any evidence in support of the conclusion that humans response to stimulations in the similar way, yet alone to prove that birth order affect the individual’s levels of stimulation. If so, the author cannot defend the conclusion on the basis of what might be a false analogy between humans and monkeys.
In conclusion, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unpersuasive. To strengthen it, the editorial’s author must either explain that whether the sample used in this study were representative, or elaborate on the fact that humans and monkeys are similar in all respects. Finally, to better evaluate the author’s conclusion, I need to know that other factors, which might affect the results of the study, were not present during the experiment on the above-mentioned monkeys.
The
Writer
of the
argument
makes
a strong
conclusion
about the
positive
effect of
birth
order
on individual’s
levels
of
stimulation
based on a
study
of eighteen rhesus
monkeys
.
However
, the
conclusion
is based
on a number of premises that can
be accounted
for in
other
ways
as well
.
First
and fore most, the editorial’s
author
mentions a
study
on eighteen rhesus
monkeys
,
yet
fail to
explain
whether the
sample
studied is representative of the larger population or not. For that matter, the
conclusion
is not convincing in its
current
form. As you know, in research
studies
, the larger and more representative the
sample
of
study
, the more reliable and valid the findings are. Without solid explanations that the
sample
used
in the
argument
was representative of the larger population, the findings of such a
study
is neither reliable nor valid.
Even assuming that the
sample
used
in the
study
was representative, the
conclusion
is based
on another crucial assumption that no
other
factors
affecting the amounts of
hormone
, which
are produced
by the
monkeys
, are present. Absent any evidence that this is the case, I cannot accept the
conclusion
. The
writer
of the
argument
must
supply concrete explanations regarding the fact that high
levels
of cortisol might have
been caused
by
other
factors
that were not considered in the
study
. Perhaps, the firstborn
monkeys
produced more
hormones
due to sexual desires or
some
environmental
factors
at the time of
birth
regardless of the
birth
order
. Or maybe the mother’s body caused the increase in the production of
hormones
, not the
stimulation
. In short, without ruling out these and
other
possible scenarios, the
conclusion
lack any merit whatsoever.
Finally
, the
argument
relies on a false analogy between
humans
and
monkeys
that
human
also
produce
relatively
high
levels
of cortisol in stimulating situations. In
order
for
monkeys
to act as a model or reference for
humans
to draw similar scientific
conclusions
, the
writer
of the
argument
must
explain
that all the
factors
involving the
stimulation
and production of
hormones
in
humans
and
monkeys
are
otherwise
essentially
the same.
However
, the
writer
of the
argument
does not offer any evidence in support of the
conclusion
that
humans
response to
stimulations
in the similar way,
yet
alone to prove that
birth
order
affect the individual’s
levels
of
stimulation
. If
so
, the
author
cannot defend the
conclusion
on the basis of what might be a false analogy between
humans
and monkeys.
In
conclusion
, the
argument
is
logically
flawed and
therefore
unpersuasive. To strengthen it, the editorial’s
author
must
either
explain
that whether the
sample
used
in this
study
were representative, or elaborate on the fact that
humans
and
monkeys
are similar in all respects.
Finally
, to better evaluate the
author’s
conclusion
, I need to know that
other
factors
, which might affect the results of the
study
, were not present during the experiment on the above-mentioned
monkeys
.
Funny
Love
Wow
Angry
Sad