▶ Your Answer :
The
argument concludes that a recent study shows clues as to the effects of birth
order on an individual’s levels of stimulation. This conclusion is based on erroneous
premises that high levels of cortisol is the indicator of individual’s high level
of stimulation, and that the maternal cortisol level during pregnancy is
related to the progeny’s level of cortisol during stimulating situations after
birth. Also, the speaker used vague terms when citing experiment results, and
he/she did not even provide the detailed condition of the experiment. Thus, the
conclusion is problematic as it stands.
First
of all, high levels of cortisol which primes the body for increased activity
levels does not necessarily mean the individual’s high level of stimulation.
The speaker’s conclusion was derived from the fact that firstborn primates produced
up to twice as much of the hormone cortisol as did their younger siblings.
However, cortisol might not a direct indicator of stimulation level of
individuals. For instance, it might be possible that cortisol is just secreted
when unexpected events are happened regardless of individual’s level of
stimulation. Thus, without stating the relationship between cortisol level and
individual’s stimulation level, the conclusion might not be true.
Secondly,
the
relationship between maternal cortisol level during pregnancy and the progeny’s
cortisol level during stimulating situations after birth was not substantiated,
but the speaker took the
relationship between them as granted. By
stating that first-time mother monkeys had higher levels of cortisol than did
those who had had several offspring, the speaker supported his conclusion on
the effects of birth order on an individual’s level of stimulation. However, it
might be possible that the maternal level of cortisol during pregnancy does not
have any impact on its progeny’s cortisol level after birth.
Lastly,
the speaker used vague term like “relatively high levels of cortisol” when
citing the experiment on human subjects. He does not even specified the
condition of the experiment as well. Scientific findings should be based on the
exact numbers, statistics, and rigorously controlled experiment conditions. When
stating “relatively high”, judging whether this high number is statistically
meaningful or not is impossible. Thus, the speaker should provide more
information on the experiment to support his/her assertion.
In
sum, the argument is based on unsubstantiated relationships between two factors,
vague terms, and unstated experiment conditions. If any of the premises the
speaker took as granted is found to be faulty, the speaker’s argument would be
false. Thus, the speaker needs to provide more evidences which prove the
premises of him/her to substantiate the argument. |