Re: Argument practice
[#permalink]
02 May 2019, 06:44
Hi! I was practicing with the same prompt and would like if anyone could take a look at it
In the letter presented to the editor of a scientific journal, it is stated that firstborn humans produce higher amounts of cortisol when facing a stimulating situation (the return of a parent or meeting someone for the first time) than their younger siblings. The writer comes to this conclusion based on a study performed on rhesus monkeys in which the firstborn monkeys showed higher cortisol levels than the others, and first-time mothers evidenced elevated cortisol in comparison with mothers who had several offspring. However, there are other different explanations that could rival the proposed one.
First of all, the author of the letter is assuming that humans and monkeys have the same reactions to stimulating situations, leaving out of consideration the differences in the frontal lobe (in charge of receiving the cortisol signal) development of these two animals. The more advanced frontal lobe of the human might have a different relation among stimulating situations and cortisol production than that of monkeys. In this case, the proposition of the writer would be flawed.
Secondly, the results found in the study might be biased; the research was performed on eighteen monkeys but, there is no further information about the significance of the sample, or how the eighteen monkeys were chosen. If for example, the participants of the research belonged to a zoo, the conditions and exposure to external stimuli would have affected their cortisol levels in ways different from those of wild monkeys. Therefore, the result might not be representative of all the monkeys, but only the ones observed, undermining the conclusion reached by the author of the letter.
Thirdly, the conclusion reached is not pondering that not all stimulating situations are the same and consequently, biological reactions will also differ. In the research shown the stimulating situation was meeting new monkeys, and the other example given by the author is the return of a parent but, the term stimulating situation is too broad; eating might be considered a stimulating situation, as well as running, and these might not vary the cortisol levels in monkeys or humans. Thus, the premise of the author might be easily critiqued.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now is considerately flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to prove the similarity of cortisol mechanisms in humans and rhesus monkeys, the validity of the research and a more narrow definition of stimulating situations, then it would be possible to support the given thesis.