"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

The argument that finding certain results based on uncertain study has a lot of ambiguities and the writer failed to explain strong evidence to prove the conclusion. Using a study with limited scope cannot illustrate any clues to generalize certain hypothesizes. With studying of only eighteen rhesus monkeys cannot illustrate important results because the numbers of societies are low which cannot support the results correctly.

The study of the effect of birth order on an individual’s levels of stimulation needs large groups of animals and different kinds of monkeys which provide strong clues to convince readers while the recent study develop its results by studying on only eighteen special monkeys. The research could select the scope of its research at a large scale and take several main factors into account to prove its findings. It is more likely that monkeys could not be reasonable case study for these kinds of research. Maybe first born infant monkeys eat more than their younger siblings and have more activity levels which produce up to twice as much of the hormone cortisol. The study could use other animals in its scope of research and consider producing the hormone coristol among firstborn infant animals in comparison with the proportion of this hormone at their younger siblings.

The other weak point of this study is that considering the level of cortisol among humans in stimulating situations without strong evidence. Example like the return of a parent after an absence for showing high levels of cortisol among firstborn children cannot prove any scientific fact because there are several important measures that should be taken into consideration for this case study. Other younger siblings may produce the high levels of coristol in the same situations when one of their parents returns after a long absence. The study could convince the readers with decent evidence and examples to reinforce its argument. Moreover, the research could improve its reasons by giving some statistical numbers about the percent of coristol hormone among children at same family in the same situations.

In addition, the study also failed to present strong reasons to prove that why first-time mother monkeys had higher levels of cortisol than did those who had had several offspring. It is clear that there are several factors which will eventually to increasing the levels of this hormone among first- time mother monkeys and the study could investigate certain factors like special circumstance that first- time mother monkeys have or special foods that they eat before, during and after their delivery which influenced on producing this hormone. Maybe, in some cases those who had had several offspring at the same circumstance, produce same level of cortisol in comparison with first- time mother monkeys who produced.

In conclusion, the study does not have appropriate evidence to support its findings and the scope of research is not persuasive to rely on the results. Studying on certain animals like monkeys with limited numbers could not make contribution with other research to generalize the results and help scholars to do further research by reliance on this study. The research could develop the scope of study and use wide variety of animals to render strong results with using statistical numbers to prove the finding as a noticeable reference for future research.