[未归类] argument160 wyg[无名] [复制链接]

wangygd
UID：2256210

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 324
注册时间: 2006-9-25
精华: 0
帖子: 3

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-7-25 19:41:14 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ARGUMENT160 - 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.
WORDS: 451 TIME: 00:43:26 DATE: 2007-7-25 9:58:11

In the argument, the author draws a conclusion that science can solve the poor memory problems which neither parents nor teachers could solve. To support the conclusion, the author cites the result of tests concerning the effect of the compounds in rats. The argument may seem to be logical and feasible. A careful examination, however, can reveal that it is unpersuasive for several flaws.

Firstly, the author fails to provide evidence that the compounds can be used among people. As I am concerned, the tests just have research on rats, it is quite possible the compound do great harm to people's healthy when people take it as the treatment to lost memory. Common senses and experiences tell us that a medicine must have many tests to exam whether it will bring to person bad effects although curing certain illness before it is used to patients. Unless the author provide adequate information about whether the compound is safe to people, the conclusion is ungrounded.

Secondly, even assuming that the compound can be used to people, it may not necessary be effective to solve poor memory and difficulty in concentrating of students. Conditions between people and rats vary widely. And it is quite possible that it is not the PEP that are responsible for the lost memory. For that matter, the compound may not be able to help people restore lost memory as it does to rats. Even assuming that the compound can restore lost memory of people, it may not necessarily indicate that it can be used to students to improve their serious problems in the school performance. Perhaps it only takes effect in lost memory while having no effect in improving poor memory. These possibilities, if so, render the conclusion of argument unconvincing.

Finally, the author unfairly assumes that parents or teaches can’t solve students' serious problems in school performance. No evidence is shown that parents and teachers can do nothing to help students solve these problems. It is as likely that teachers have improved their teach methods and make their lesson more interesting to arouse students' attention in the class. It is also possible that parents have found some memory skills or some more effective medicine to improve the poor memory of students. Unless the author consider and rule out other plausible ways to solve these problems, the author can not justifiably draw any conclusion whatsoever.

In sum, the argument is unacceptable as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide information concerning whether the compound is useful and safe for people to restore the lost memory. To best evaluate the argument, the author needs to provide evidence that science is the only ways to solve serious problems in school performance.