Please rate my argument and suggest me improvisation ;)

[Mayur Kulkarni]

I've copy pasted this from notepad with spelling mistakes (if any ;))

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The study on monkeys is trying to bridge connection between the order of birth and individual's level of stimulation. It draws out multiple conclusions like the firstborns produce higher level of cortisol in comparison with the younger ones and later it tries to relate the same conclusion with the cortisol rates in human and finally, it states that first time mother monkeys have higher level of cortisol in comparison with those who have had several children. The given argument is based on many and erroneous assumptions and the conclusion is way too generalised.

Firstly, the given study is based only on eighteen monkeys which is not a considerable number to draw a rigid conclusion on. Then, it states that firstborn monkeys produce more hormone in comparison with the younger ones.There could be number of factors responsible for this behaviour, for instance the first born maybe a female or, the monkey may have certian psychological conditions which forced it to behave in such a manner. There is no information given about the monkey like whether or not they belong to same geographic location or not, what was their age, sex etc. Thus the given conclusion is not cogent.

Secondly, it tries to relate the behaviour of firstborn humans and firstborn monkeys on the basis that they both produce high level
of cortisol. Here it uses the term 'relatively' which fails to explain relative to what? and is a very ambiguous term to draw a conclusion on. Again, there is insufficient data regarding the background of the person who is under study. Perhaps he/she may have idiosyncrasies or the person may be overly or less affectionate towards parents. Moreover it does not specify the age of the person under study, perhaps a person may be old and mature enough to not show stimulus in absence of parent, or he well may be a small baby who may show high level of hormone change in absence of parent.

Lastly, it states that the first time mother had higher cortisol levels than the other ones. There could be number of reason for this. Perhaps the monkey under study had certain physical conditions which resulted in elavated cortisol levels. Or perhaps the fact that she is pregnant for the first time may have made her nervous resulting in high cortisol levels.

In sum, there could be number of reasons for the cortisol levels in monkeys and in human. More background information regarding the assets under study could've resulted in a plausible argument.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Mayur Kulkarni

[Vince Kotchian GRE Prep]

hi Mayur,

I'd give this a 3:

- don't judge the argument ("The given argument is based on many and erroneous assumptions and the conclusion is way too generalised.")

- there is no real argument made by the passage - so it doesn't make sense to talk about the "argument" in your response.

Here's an example of why your response doesn't seem to answer the assignment:

"There could be number of factors responsible for this behaviour, for instance the first born maybe a female or, the monkey may have certian psychological conditions which forced it to behave in such a manner." - why would sex matter? - what conditions?

"There is no information given about the monkey like whether or not they belong to same geographic location or not, what was their age, sex etc. Thus the given conclusion is not cogent." - no need to point out what the study doesn't do - your job is to offer alternate explanations. - don't judge the study.

Overall, the essay doesn't seem to respond to the assignment, or to provide much analysis when it does.

[Mayur Kulkarni]

Thanks Vince I'll definitely keep this in mind next time