BlueberrySings

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. ... ... i wonder, the proposed explanation means the explanation for the effects of birth order right? then how could we offer another explanation without embracing a biological logic inward to back it up? and.. what could possibly be an alternative explanation? should i write about the fact that "A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys" is patently not convincing enough as we need more monkeys to do the research?... or is it just too trivial? maybe digressive? should i write about the logic between "the firstborn infants and first-time mother" does sound cogent as the cortisol can either be inherited through the genes or directly get from the mother side... > so... i have no any clue to continue with this argument, any help would be appreciated and awarded by blueberry muffins if possible...

arrg, i don't why i could have posted it here when i was browsing the gre argument section obviously that i asked me to sign up and altered the sites something like that... T_____T#... how can i transmit it to the gre AWA sections... >

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. ... ... i wonder, the proposed explanation means the explanation for the effects of birth order right? then how could we offer another explanation without embracing a biological logic inward to back it up? and.. what could possibly be an alternative explanation? should i write about the fact that "A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys" is patently not convincing enough as we need more monkeys to do the research?... or is it just too trivial? maybe digressive? should i write about the logic between "the firstborn infants and first-time mother" does sound cogent as the cortisol can either be inherited through the genes or directly get from the mother side... > so... i have no any clue to continue with this argument, any help would be appreciated and awarded by blueberry muffins if possible...