[a习作temp] Argument160求拍 [复制链接]

jbs08
UID：2601721

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 134
注册时间: 2009-2-12
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-2-23 12:59:01 |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: 387       TIME: 00:39:54       DATE: 2009-2-20 19:22:07

The argument above presents a relatively sound case for arguing that some compounds which can prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart should be extended/administered to students of/with poor memory and concentration. However, careful scrutiny of this argument would reveal that it suffers from several fallacies and therefor is unconvincing.

First of all,  the arguer fails to take into account the inherent differences between rats and students. Perhaps the same course of action would be ineffective on students due to a myriad of differences, such as genetic, dietary, habits, characteristics and other reasons, especially for the reason that they are different species. As a result, rats and students establish an oversimplified analogy. Without accounting for these and other possible dissimilarities, the arguer cannot assume that what resulted in restoring lost memory of rats would bring about the same result in students.

secondly, the arguer cites the result of a research that those compounds can prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart and the test result that those compounds almost completely restored rats' lost memory. In order to evaluate the evidence of such research and test result, we have to consider how  these research and test were conducted. Lacking information about the detail course of the research and test, it is impossible to assess the validity of the results.

Thirdly, even though all the above results are true, these compounds only can restore lost memory, maybe have no effect on improving poor memory, let alone improving concentration things. The arguer provides no evidence about how these compounds take effect upon concentration. Lacking related evidence the arguer cannot draw any firm conclusion.

Finally,  we have no idea about the exact age when PEP begins to break down the neuropeptide chemicals. Maybe students' age is not so high as to result in the breakdown of the neuropeptide chemicals. Lacking such evidence that  this phenomenon  indeed exist at students' stage the arguer cannot draw that these compounds are effective upon students.

In summary, this argument has several patent flaws which render it logically unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, further investigation and analysis are needed. To persuade me that these compounds indeed have effect on students, the arguer would need to provide clear evidence that  the breakdown of the neuropeptide chemicals indeed exist in students and these compounds are suitable to students.