Argument50 G-89互助社8月12日作业限时 30分钟好短啊 [复制链接]

iamfeather
UID：202850

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 261
注册时间: 2005-3-27
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-8-12 10:53:49 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Argument160
------题目------
As people grow older, an enzyme known as PEP increasingly breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals involved in learning and memory. But now, researchers have found compounds that prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart. In tests, these compounds almost completely restored lost memory in rats. The use of these compounds should be extended to students who have poor memory and difficulty in concentrating—and therefore serious problems in school performance. Science finally has a solution for problems neither parents nor teachers could solve.
------正文------
The speaker concludes that the use of the compounds mentioned in the argument should be extended to students who have poor memory and difficulty. To substantiate this conclusion, the arguer point out the function of this compounds and cites a test of rats. However, this argument suffers from several flaws, which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the arguer assumes PEP breaks down the neuropeptide chemical involved in learning and memory cause a bad memory and unconvincing. However, there is no evidence to support this assumption. It entirely possible, PEP breaks down the chemical, and in the same time accelerate the production of these chemicals. Or perhaps breaking down these chemicals has nothing to do with memory of human beings. Without ruling out these possibilities, this argument is unconvincing.

Furthermore, this argument rest on a test of rats that this compound can restored lost memory in students. Nevertheless, this test is too vague to be informative. Firstly, there is no guarantee that rats can represent students. They are two different animals both in brain and in body. Perhaps the compound is effective in rats, while has no function to human being. In addition, the arguer fails to point the side-effect of this compound. Maybe from a rat can not see these effects, but if the compound is used to human beings, perhaps it can cause some disease, such as depression or so. All the above mentioned possibilities, if true, make the argument not sound.

Last but not least, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if the compound is effective in restoring memory, it can not serve in student of poor memory and difficulty in concentrating. The main problem is due to the students but not some assistant. It is possible the students do not like to memory the knowledge, but not forget. Or perhaps they pay their attention in other things, such as computer games. Query the arguer whether these problems can be solved by this compound. If so, then the argument amount to poor evidence.

To sum up, this argument is not well-supported. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide more evidence regarding the link between the PEP and memories along with a sound test. To better evaluate the argument, we need more information regarding other alternative causes of the problem of the students

8.26北京鼎均，10.22天大，大家一起加油哦

回应
0

使用道具举报

tianrushui
UID：207550

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 0
寄托币: 1532
注册时间: 2005-4-29
精华: 0
帖子: 16

沙发

发表于 2005-8-13 21:14:14 |只看该作者

The speaker concludes that the use of the compounds mentioned in the argument should be extended to students who have poor memory and difficulty. To substantiate this conclusion, the arguer point(s) out the function of this compounds and cites a test of rats. However, this argument suffers from several flaws, which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the arguer assumes PEP breaks down the neuropeptide chemical involved in learning and memory cause a bad memory and unconvincing. However, there is no evidence to support this assumption. It( is )entirely possible (that )PEP breaks down the chemical, and in the same time accelerate the production of these chemicals. Or perhaps breaking down these chemicals has nothing to do with memory of human beings.这里可以再详细点,PEP breaks down the neuropeptide chemical 导致记忆力的下降是发生在老人身上的,可以说下老人和年轻人不一样 Without ruling out these possibilities, this argument is unconvincing.

Furthermore, this argument rest（s） on a test of rats that this compound can restored lost memory in students.这句有点问题 Nevertheless, this test is too vague to be informative. Firstly, there is no guarantee that rats can represent students. They are two different animals both in brain and in body. Perhaps the compound is effective in rats, while has no function to human beings). In addition, the arguer fails to point the side-effect of this compound. Maybe from a rat can not see these effects, but if the compound is used to human beings, perhaps it can cause some disease, such as depression or so. All the above mentioned possibilities, if true, make the argument not sound.

Last but not least, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if the compound is effective in restoring memory, it can not serve in student of poor memory and difficulty in concentrating. The main problem is due to the students but not some assistant. It is possible the students do not like to memory the knowledge, but not forget这句话的结构可以再改下. Or perhaps they pay their attention in(to) other things, such as computer games. Query the arguer whether these problems can be solved by this compound. If so, then the argument amount to poor evidence.

To sum up, this argument is not well-supported. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide more evidence regarding the link between the PEP and memories along with a sound test. To better evaluate the argument, we need more information regarding other alternative causes of the problem of the students
主要逻辑错误都找出来了呀,有些小的语法错误,个别句子不太通顺.一个小的建议,就是可以body的每段首句改下,层层逼近,虽然你现在的顺序就是这样的,可以让文章看起来逻辑性更强些.不过不知道这么说对不对啊,如果不对,还请原谅.:)
另外,帮我也看下吧,谢谢了
:)https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=318215

使用道具举报

返回列表

Argument50 G-89互助社8月12日作业 限时 30分钟好短啊 [复制链接]

Argument50 G-89互助社8月12日作业限时 30分钟好短啊 [复制链接]