[Snickers小组] 11月12日 Argument160

daniexiaUID: 2403405

文章被隐藏

zhangwanyingUID: 2775533

发错了，sorry

zcsdtcUID: 2875047

In this argument, the author tries to conclude that the compounds that prevent the enzyme known as PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart can be applied to students who have poor memory and difficulty in concentrating. I found(这个地方用find就可以了吧) the author's logic and ratiocination are quite flawed in citing research evidence that rats completely restored lost memory in order to state the above conclusion. Also I don't agree with the final conclusion that science has a solution for problems that neither parents nor teachers could solve.

First, it is when people grow old that the enzyme PEP increasingly breaks down the chemical substance related to learning and memory. This cannot certainly apply to young people, especially school students. Since there is no evidence indicating students also have the PEP issue, the situation for them may be not the same as the situation for elderly people.

In the second place, even we assume that no matter what the age is, human always encounters the enzyme PEP breaking down issue, only preventing PEP from breaking down neuropeptide still can be little help if there is other chemical substance that also has bad impact on neuropeptide. Thus the researchers should also provide enough evidence that the factors causing a breakdown of neuropeptide only involves the enzyme PEP, so as to prove that the research result is sufficient.

Third, the tests of the newly found compounds against PEP are for rats, which is scant evidence that human also has such test results. Perhaps, the compound is very poisonous that only small mammals like rats can bear, we human can hardly take in these chemical compounds unless enough tests have been completed and an improvement of the compounds has been made.

Finally, it is unjustifiable to claim that the science can solve the problem for improving students’ poor memory and bad school performance that parents and teachers can hardly solve. It is true that in this case the scientific solution may have such benefit for students. However, lots of problems for students who have poor performance are not because of their poor memory or difficulty in concentrating, but because of their emotional feelings, intelligence and so on. These problems are parents and teacher's job, and certainly they are able to finish the job well without the interference of scientific study.

In brief, the article is flawed in the assumption that elder people and young students have the same case for the enzyme PEP in learning and memory and the way that the tests have been undertaken. To corroborate the conclusion, a more detailed research should be conducted to prove that the compounds that prevent PEP breaking down neuropeptides is the right choice for students. For example, do some tests on the youth to see if the result is the same as the narrated one.
基本把argument中的问题都发现了，很好。每个攻击段的论述显得少了些，应该再增加些评论性的语句，这样就更完美了。

彼年豆蔻UID: 2791778

In this argument, the author tries to conclude that the compounds that改为which prevent the enzyme known as PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart can be applied to students who have poor memory and difficulty in concentrating. I found the author's logic and ratiocination are quite flawed in citing research evidence that rats completely restored lost memory in order to state the above conclusion. Also I don't agree with the final conclusion that science has a solution for problems that neither parents nor teachers could solve.

First, it is when people grow old that the enzyme PEP increasingly breaks down the chemical substance related to learning and memory. This cannot certainly apply to young people, especially school students. Since there is no evidence indicating students also have the PEP issue, the situation for them may be not the same as the situation for elderly people.


In the second place, even we assume that no matter what the age is, human always encounters the enzyme PEP breaking down issue, only preventing PEP from breaking down neuropeptide still can be little help if there is other chemical substance that also has bad impact on neuropeptide. Thus the researchers should also provide enough evidence that the factors causing a breakdown of neuropeptide only involves the enzyme PEP, so as to prove that the research result is sufficient.


Third, the tests of the newly found compounds against PEP are （for）改为on rats, which is scant evidence that human also has such test results. 加一句人和rat有生理构造上的差别。Perhaps, the compound is very poisonous that only small mammals like rats can bear, we human can hardly take in these chemical compounds unless enough tests have been completed and an improvement of the compounds has been made.

Finally, it is unjustifiable to claim that the science can solve the problem for improving students’ poor memory and bad school performance that parents and teachers can hardly solve. It is true that in this case the scientific solution may have such benefit for students. However, lots of problems for students who have poor performance are not because of their poor memory or difficulty in concentrating, but because of their emotional feelings, intelligence and so on. These problems are parents and teacher's job, and certainly they are able to finish the job well without the interference of scientific study.不要加入自己的主观判断

In brief, the article is flawed in the assumption that elder people and young students have the same case for the enzyme PEP in learning and memory and the way that the tests have been undertaken. To corroborate the conclusion, a more detailed research should be conducted to prove that the compounds that prevent PEP breaking down neuropeptides is the right choice for students. For example, do some tests on the youth to see if the result is the same as the narrated one.

daniexiaUID: 2403405

根据上述意见，修改如下，

文章被隐藏