GRE Prep Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 24Get an Extra 30% Off Target Test Prep Plans
08:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Grab 30% off any Target Test Prep GRE plan during our Flash Sale and join Brian and many other students who have used Target Test Prep to score high on the GRE. Just enter the coupon code FLASH30 at checkout to save big.
Argument Task - A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys pr
[#permalink]
14 May 2019, 06:57
14 May 2019, 06:57
1
Hi, can anyone help me to assess the argument essays that I have written? 
Thank you so much and have a great day ahead!
My Essay is the following:
Thank you so much and have a great day ahead!Quote:
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.
"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 is the following:
Quote:
In the arguments presented above, the writer tries to justify his point about the correlation between birth order of an individuals and their corresponding levels of stimulation. While the explanations offered above might seem valid at a first glance, I believe that there are alternative arguments that renders author’s claims invalid.
Firstly, the experiment that the writer used to justify his argument might not be enough to conclude the causation between ( the ) birth of order and level of stimulations within rhesus monkeys. In conducting experiments, one must not confuse correlations that they observe with causation, as there might be numerous confounding factors which causes the experiments to behave a certain way. As the number of rhesus monkey involved within the experiments is small, It might be the case that the firstborn produces more cortisol due to it’s gender, age, or experiment (experimental ) conditions. It is possible that the other monkeys have low cortisol due to their current age - they have not developed good eyesights, and thus unable to recognize unfamilliar monkeys clearly. Without taking into account the controls of the experiment, the conclusion from this experiment might be unjustifiable.
Secondly, the writer extrapolates the claim from the rhesus monkey experiment to human. He argued that firstborn humans are also stimulated when they encounter exciting situations. However, in the paragraph above, the level of stimulation on the younger ones are not specified. It might be the case that all humans stimulate the similar level of cortisol when they encounter these situations, regardless of their birth order. This will render the claim made by the writer invalid. It is also not shown how close does physical and psychiological behaviour of the rhesus monkey in resembling human’s. Even though both of them are mammals, it is well known that experiments done in an animal might not hold the same expected efffects when it is done in human. Therefore, even though the order of birth do affect the level of stimuation in monkeys, the same situatuion might not hold true for an individual.
Lastly, the writer explains that first-time mother monkeys had higher levels of cortisol than those who had children before. I argue that this point might not explain writer’s claim well. During pregnancy, we do not know whether the level of hormones between the mother and the baby is correlated or not. If the increase of hormones in the mother does not induce the babies’ hormone, then the last statement have (has) no impact on the writer’s argument
I believe that a more thorough study is needed to make the writer’s argument to be acceptable. Firstly, relationship between the physical condition of human and monkeys has to be well established. Secondly, the experiments performed on the rhesus monkey must result in causality conclusion. A mere observation from the experiment is not enough to be a compelling argument for the claim given by the writer.
Firstly, the experiment that the writer used to justify his argument might not be enough to conclude the causation between ( the ) birth of order and level of stimulations within rhesus monkeys. In conducting experiments, one must not confuse correlations that they observe with causation, as there might be numerous confounding factors which causes the experiments to behave a certain way. As the number of rhesus monkey involved within the experiments is small, It might be the case that the firstborn produces more cortisol due to it’s gender, age, or experiment (experimental ) conditions. It is possible that the other monkeys have low cortisol due to their current age - they have not developed good eyesight
Secondly, the writer extrapolates the claim from the rhesus monkey experiment to human. He argued that firstborn humans are also stimulated when they encounter exciting situations. However, in the paragraph above, the level of stimulation on the younger ones are not specified. It might be the case that all humans stimulate the similar level of cortisol when they encounter these situations, regardless of their birth order. This will render the claim made by the writer invalid. It is also not shown how close does physical and psychiological behaviour of the rhesus monkey in resembling human’s. Even though both of them are mammals, it is well known that experiments done in an animal might not hold the same expected eff
Lastly, the writer explains that first-time mother monkeys had higher levels of cortisol than those who had children before. I argue that this point might not explain writer’s claim well. During pregnancy, we do not know whether the level of hormones between the mother and the baby is correlated or not. If the increase of hormones in the mother does not induce the babies’ hormone, then the last statement have (has) no impact on the writer’s argument
I believe that a more thorough study is needed to make the writer’s argument to be acceptable. Firstly, relationship between the physical condition of human and monkeys has to be well established. Secondly, the experiments performed on the rhesus monkey must result in causality conclusion. A mere observation from the experiment is not enough to be a compelling argument for the claim given by the writer.
Re: Argument Task - A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys pr
[#permalink]
14 May 2019, 18:05
14 May 2019, 18:05
Expert Reply
All the colored part I corrected are errors of basic grammar at a different level. Then I stopped. You should really be revised the AWA.
People do not understand that the spelling errors count more than the content of the AWA itself (to some extent. take my comment with a grain of salt).
However, the AWA is well structured.
I gave kudos because it is written good and is the first AWA on the board that follows effortless the guidelines.
Which I think are barely two steps to follow for a decent yet understandable AWA.
Regards
People do not understand that the spelling errors count more than the content of the AWA itself (to some extent. take my comment with a grain of salt).
However, the AWA is well structured.
I gave kudos because it is written good and is the first AWA on the board that follows effortless the guidelines.
Which I think are barely two steps to follow for a decent yet understandable AWA.
Regards
Re: Argument Task - A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys pr
[#permalink]
20 May 2019, 10:51
20 May 2019, 10:51
Please see my response to the above mentioned argument. Any feedback is welcome and appreciated.
The recent study published provides clues about the cortisol levels released in rhesus monkeys and humans to stimulation that might help in establishing birth order. However, the premise compares two different species under different stimulation situations and draws similar conclusions for both the monkeys and humans. According to me, the argument is rife with holes and assumptions that can weaken it and there might be other possible explanations for the higher cortisol release.
Firstly, the study mentions that only eighteen monkeys were considered for the experiments. This is a very small sample size to be able to come to a conclusion for a whole population. Eighteen monkeys do no warrant for a behavior of the entire monkey population. Additionally, the increased levels in cortisol could also be influenced by factors like environmental conditions or diet. No other details of the eighteen monkeys are provided, like why was this sample size chosen, are all the monkeys of the same age to begin with, are the monkeys studied in a facility or in a natural habitat; such factors could lead to release in higher cortisol release.
Secondly, the study treats the situation of an encounter with an unfamiliar monkey of a firstborn monkey infant to the reaction of firstborn human on the return of a human parent after an absence. The cortisol levels released in the monkey and human infants are compared and considered equivalent. However, comparing the stimulus to two completely different situations is unwarranted. An unfamiliar monkey is totally unknown to the infant monkey while a returned parent is not a complete stranger to the infant human. Moreover, the study does not mention what was the sample size of the firstborn infant humans studied; this could largely affect the findings mentioned. If out of a pool of 20 only 2 infants displayed higher levels of cortisol to the stimulus then the conclusion is totally superfluous.
Lastly, the study mentions that first time pregnant mothers had higher levels of cortisol than did those who had several offspring. Here, again the study makes the grave mistake of not mentioning the sample size. How many first time pregnant mothers were actually studied to jump to a conclusion for the entire population? It is very well possible that the higher levels of cortisol of first time pregnant mothers can be attributed to factors like mother’s age, diet, lifestyle, stress, environmental conditions etc. There is no mention of any of these details and neither does the study mention that the pregnant mothers studied were exactly the same in all the aspects. Also, a higher cortisol level in mothers does not translate to the same levels in their babies.
In conclusion, the fundamental blunder of the study was to compare two very different species in entirely different situations and provide a very small sample size to prove a conclusion for an entire population. There were also no other details mentioned about the samples that were studied which could have been major influencing factors in the release of cortisol. Hence, due to the aforementioned reasons, the argument is flawed.
The recent study published provides clues about the cortisol levels released in rhesus monkeys and humans to stimulation that might help in establishing birth order. However, the premise compares two different species under different stimulation situations and draws similar conclusions for both the monkeys and humans. According to me, the argument is rife with holes and assumptions that can weaken it and there might be other possible explanations for the higher cortisol release.
Firstly, the study mentions that only eighteen monkeys were considered for the experiments. This is a very small sample size to be able to come to a conclusion for a whole population. Eighteen monkeys do no warrant for a behavior of the entire monkey population. Additionally, the increased levels in cortisol could also be influenced by factors like environmental conditions or diet. No other details of the eighteen monkeys are provided, like why was this sample size chosen, are all the monkeys of the same age to begin with, are the monkeys studied in a facility or in a natural habitat; such factors could lead to release in higher cortisol release.
Secondly, the study treats the situation of an encounter with an unfamiliar monkey of a firstborn monkey infant to the reaction of firstborn human on the return of a human parent after an absence. The cortisol levels released in the monkey and human infants are compared and considered equivalent. However, comparing the stimulus to two completely different situations is unwarranted. An unfamiliar monkey is totally unknown to the infant monkey while a returned parent is not a complete stranger to the infant human. Moreover, the study does not mention what was the sample size of the firstborn infant humans studied; this could largely affect the findings mentioned. If out of a pool of 20 only 2 infants displayed higher levels of cortisol to the stimulus then the conclusion is totally superfluous.
Lastly, the study mentions that first time pregnant mothers had higher levels of cortisol than did those who had several offspring. Here, again the study makes the grave mistake of not mentioning the sample size. How many first time pregnant mothers were actually studied to jump to a conclusion for the entire population? It is very well possible that the higher levels of cortisol of first time pregnant mothers can be attributed to factors like mother’s age, diet, lifestyle, stress, environmental conditions etc. There is no mention of any of these details and neither does the study mention that the pregnant mothers studied were exactly the same in all the aspects. Also, a higher cortisol level in mothers does not translate to the same levels in their babies.
In conclusion, the fundamental blunder of the study was to compare two very different species in entirely different situations and provide a very small sample size to prove a conclusion for an entire population. There were also no other details mentioned about the samples that were studied which could have been major influencing factors in the release of cortisol. Hence, due to the aforementioned reasons, the argument is flawed.
