argument160

happylilywanUID: 2649768

Argument 160
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.



In this argument, the author makes a conclusion that compounds which can prevent PEP,an enzyme which can break down the neuropeptide involved in learning and memory,from breaking neuropeptides apart can be used to help those students who have poor memory and suffer from concentrating problem. To justify this conclusion, the author cites a test involved several rats whose memory had almost been restored after taking these compounds. The author also claims that science can solve problems that neither parents nor teachers could solve. I found this argument logically unconvincing in four critical respects.



A threshold problem with the argument involves the statistical reliability of the test. The author provides no evidence that the number of the rats is statistically significant or that these rats were absolutely representative of all rats in general. Perhaps only three rats had been tested and these rats had a extraordinary capability to restore memory themselves. Without ruling out this possibility, the author cannot confidently draw the conclusion.



Second, even I concede that the test is representative and valid, the author fails to consider the possible differences between rats and human beings.Those compounds which had impact on the rats may not effective to humans at all. Without providing sufficient evidence to show that the curative effect applies to the people as well, the author's conclusion is still invalid and to some extent unconvincing.

Third, even assuming that the compounds can definitely help prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptide, there is no evidence that the students' problems is due to the damage of chemicals involved in learning and memory. It is possible that they are just  undernourished so that they could concentrate on their study. It is also possible that they are experiencing rebellion time and set themselves against to the teacher deliberately so that the teacher regard them as problemmaking students. If the author couldn't provide evidence that the students' problem and the PEP are directly related, the conclusion may somehow unpersuasive.

Finally, the author's claim that science has a solution for problems neither parents nor teachers could solve is one-sided. One one hand, there is no information in the argument indicating the role of teachers and parents, on the other hand, the author is ineligible to assert science can solve the problems.

To sum up, the author's conclusion is not well supported as it stands. To bloster it, the author must substantiate the test on rats is statistically significant and the compounds are effective to rats as well as human beings. To better make the conclusion, the author would better not assert that science can solve problems that parents and teachers cannot unless he provides more evidence to demonstrate it.