argument160 求拍，有拍必回。。。

danhomUID: 2687956

练了快两周了，觉得陷入了一个瓶颈期，不知道再在哪些方面改进，恳请各位大牛指点一二，小女感激涕零。。。

题目：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.
字数：490
用时：00:30:00
日期：2010-3-14

In this argument, the author cites a study which shows compounds restored lost memory in rats. Based on which, the author assumes it is these compounds contribute to the memory repaired. Hence, the author recommends extending these compounds to students who get poor memory and difficulty in concentrating. However, this logical process suffers from several flaws which break the correlation between each event in it.

To begin with, the author observes a correlation between the use of the compounds and the restored lost memory in rats; then concludes the former is credited for the letter. Yet, this might not be the case for a variety of reasons, perhaps it is the combining of the compounds and substance in rats' body that helps rats restored the lost memory. Or perhaps it is the food which rats ate during the study really works; for that matter, these compounds have no effect at all. Unless the author can demonstrate these scenarios are unlikely, hardly can we accept the author’s assume about these compounds functions.

Also, even if we concede the rats benefit from the use of compounds in their memory, it is nevertheless unfair to infer that people will attain the same goal as the rats by taking these compounds. Since the author have not provide any evidence about the similarities and differences between human beings and the rats, it is entirely possible that there is some substance in human beings but not in the rats which may decompose the compounds, thus, these compounds work no effect on people. Moreover, the author fails to provide evident about the side effects about these compounds on human beings, it is hasty to assume the compounds will function safely in people's body since the brain system in human being’ is more difficult and prior to the rats. Without accounting for these and other aspects, the author's assume about the compounds' effect towards human beings is unwarranted.

Finally, even assuming these compounds are attributable to improve people's memory, the author, without any evidence, presumes the medicine can be applied to students who have difficulty in concentrating. Common sense informs us poor memory and concentrating difficulty are two illnesses which are essentially unlike, so we may suspect these compounds have no use in curing concentrating. Moreover, many cases of concentrate difficulty are blame to the students’ lazy or other objective reason, for that matter, we cannot use these compounds without possible details about patience. Since the author fails to eliminate these possibilities, we remain unconvinced about author’s assume about these compounds extended use.

Taken together, the above argument is not well reasoned as it stands and renders it lacks credibility. To bolster it, the author must provide evidence about how these compounds works in the rats and the side effects about them. To reevaluate it, I also need to know the similarities and differences between human beings and rats. Thus, the argument will be thorough and logically acceptable.

nieyongUID: 2742661

写得很好啊  早点多准备issue