Search the Community

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 unfamiliar monkey), firstborn infant monkey 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 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 excerpt of the letter sent to the editor of a scitific journal present flawed results of the study realized in eighteen rhesus monkeys. Altough the author of the letter presents scientific arguments of the horme cortisol, it does not mean that the study us represetative, the assumption used to support the argument lacks sufficient supporting evidence, and therefore, it is flawed. It is necessary to the investigator demostrate the functionality of the research presented. Present more data about the levels of stimulation on rhesus monkeys to determine the importance of the study and make a comparisson with the human being. Eighteen monkeys where analyzed during the study, first of all the researcher have indicate that this sample is representative. Next indicate the methodology used to elaborate the research, if it was empirical, or if it was in a laboraty, or where it was realized. Second I has to be indicated in what region of the world this study was realized, this is so important, because it has to be proved that the rhesus monkeys of South America behave equaly to the rhesus monkys of China. The relevance of the sample is so imporant to determine the importance of the investigation. It is also so important for the investigator to indicate what does the stimulation situations means, this is a very ambiguos concept. It mentions that the monkeys under stimulating situations produce twice as much of the hormone of cortisol, but it is necessary to explain if it only apply for emotional situations (such as enconunter with unfamiliar monkey), what is the reaction of the horme cortisol in the rhesus monkey when it experiment a phisycal or spiritual situation. The researcher need to explain the scope of the estimulating situations beacause there is a very broad concept at the moment. Furthermore the author makes a comparison between the reaction of the rhesus monkeys and the humans in estimulating situations. The reaction of the monkeys cannot be extrapolated to the reaction of the humans, because the situation expresed in the excerpt its no equal. In one hand it is said that the emotional situation of the monkeys is for example when encounter with an unfamiliar monkey and in the other hand the human emtional situation is when a parent returns aftern abasence. In one it can be seen that never had been a conection between this two animals, in the other it exists a conection between the parent and the child, the have already met. The investigation must be based in comparable situations and not on assumptions that cannnot be prove. The comparison to the increase of the hormen cortisol in the first-time mother monkeys reveals that there are more explanations for the raising of the horme. The phisycal contact with another monkey of their species. It also can be involved the external factors like if the monkeys are captive, so the reactions to stimulating situations could be provoked. Finally if the monkey is sorrounded by certain stress factors can affect the increase of hormone of cortisol, the separation from the heard, the forecast of climate change. There are so many factors that increase the hormone cortisol, not only th stimulating situations. The author provides flawed evidence to determine that stimulating situation presented are the only ones to increase the hormone cortisol, his assumption relies on unproved facts that weaken the argument. The evidence must be based on a study with certain methodology, where it indicates the extent of the sample, the conditions, and the relevance of the comparison to the human being. The assumptions are discussed above, and the author should verify the key facts, not only an encounter with unfamiliar monkey or similar, it can be aver that this is the only reason to increase the hormone cortisol .