argument160【snickers小组】by zhangwanying

zhangwanyingUID: 2775533

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.

正文：538

The notion is well-presented, but far from well-reasoned. By citing some discoveries in the study of physiology, the author makes the conclusion that the applying of new-found compounds will be a solution for students' poor memory and difficulty in concentration. However, logical reasoning of the evidence provided reveals that none of them leads to a sufficient support to his conclusion.

First of all, the author state the fact that an enzyme called PEP increasingly breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals involved in learning and memory as people getting older. But the fact fails to directly correlate the

the damage of the neuropeptide chemicals and the people's memory and learning condition. Perhaps the neuropeptide chemicals are abundant enough while the damage caused by PEP are to some extent negligible; or perhaps that there are still other chemicals can substitute the neuropeptide chemicals to well maintain the condition of memory and learning. Unless the author provided convincing statistics to show that PEP causes direct damage to the memory and learning ability.

In the second place, the author claims that a new-found chemical which can prevent the breaking of neuropeptides has effectively acted on rats to restore their memory. The experiment conducted on rats is generally just the first step of pharmacological research, it is too optimistic and perfunctory for the author to cite a result that came from the nascent stage. The exists huge differences between the physiological structure of human and rat, the statement fails to preclude the possibility that the taking of this compound will lead to opposite conditions in which the results may turn out to be useless and even dangerous.

The most unpersuasive and ridiculous sentence appeared in the author's conclusion that the use of new compound will improve the students' performance in school. In the beginning of the article, the research shows that PEP won't apparently do damage to the neuropeptides until one grow older. However, in fact, the physiological and mental state of students are exactly on the rising stage, according to the theory that the author cited, the breaking of neuropeptides does not occur during that time. Also, all that has been discussed about in the statement are focused on the influence of PEP and a new-found compound upon memory status, which has totally no relationship with the students' difficulty on concentration. Further, no evidence is available to indicate that parents and teachers have no useful solution for the students' bad performance in school.

To sum up, the statement is seriously weaken by various kinds of logical flaws which lead to fallacious and even contradictory reasoning. Pharmacology is a field with the most strict safety requirement, and any irrational thinking and imprudent behavior will lead to unpredictable dangerous consequence.

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。

zcsdtcUID: 2875047

刚才发错地方了。。。。。
The notion is well-presented, but far from well-reasoned. By citing some discoveries in the study of physiology, the author makes the conclusion that the applying of new-found compounds will be a solution for students' poor memory and difficulty in concentration. However, logical reasoning of the evidence provided reveals that none of them leads to a sufficient support to his conclusion.
First of all, the author state the fact that an enzyme called PEP increasingly breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals involved in learning and memory as people getting older. But the fact fails to directly correlate the the damage of the neuropeptide chemicals and the people's memory and learning condition. Perhaps the neuropeptide chemicals are abundant enough while the damage caused by PEP are to some extent negligible; or perhaps that there are still other chemicals can substitute the neuropeptide chemicals to well maintain the condition of memory and learning. Unless the author provided convincing statistics to show that PEP causes direct damage to the memory and learning ability.
反驳有理有据，很不错。
In the second place, the author claims that a new-found chemical which can prevent the breaking of neuropeptides has effectively acted on rats to restore their memory. The experiment conducted on rats is generally just the first step of pharmacological research, it is too optimistic and perfunctory for the author to cite a result that came from the nascent stage. The exists（词用的有问题，existed） huge differences between the physiological structure of human and rat, the statement fails to preclude the possibility that the taking of this compound will lead to opposite conditions in which the results may turn out to be useless and even dangerous.
The most unpersuasive and ridiculous sentence appeared in the author's conclusion that the use of new compound will improve the students' performance in school. In the beginning of the article, the research shows that PEP won't apparently do damage to the neuropeptides until one grow older. However, in fact, the physiological and mental state of students are exactly on the rising stage, according to the theory that the author cited, the breaking of neuropeptides does not occur during that time. Also, all that has been discussed about in the statement are focused on the influence of PEP and a new-found compound upon memory status, which has totally no relationship with the students' difficulty on concentration. Further, no evidence is available to indicate that parents and teachers have no useful solution for the students' bad performance in school.
To sum up, the statement is seriously weaken by various kinds of logical flaws which lead to fallacious and even contradictory reasoning. Pharmacology is a field with the most strict safety requirement, and any irrational thinking and imprudent behavior will lead to unpredictable dangerous consequence.
总体来说，写的很不错。我觉得可以再加入一条：PEP是随着年龄增长而增多，孩子们应该体内很少，所以可能结论不适用于孩子。

how_toUID: 2943936

修改意见

zhangwanyingUID: 2775533

你说的我在倒数第二段写了啊，就是学生们正是各项身体机能的上升期。 3# zcsdtc

zhangwanyingUID: 2775533

又改了一遍，再帮忙看看，谢谢！

The notion is well-presented, but far from well-reasoned. By citing some discoveries in the study of physiology and pharmacology, the author makes the conclusion that the applying of new-found compounds will be a solution for students' poor memory and difficulty in concentration. However, logical reasoning of the evidence provided reveals that none of them leads to a sufficient support to his conclusion.

First of all, the author state the fact that an enzyme called PEP increasingly breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals involved in learning and memory as people getting older. But the fact fails to directly correlate the

the damage of the neuropeptide chemicals and the people's memory and learning condition. Perhaps the neuropeptide chemicals are abundant enough while the damage caused by PEP are to some extent negligible; or perhaps that there are still other chemicals can substitute the neuropeptide chemicals to well maintain the condition of memory and learning. Unless the author provided convincing statistics to show that PEP causes direct damage to the memory and learning ability，the author may quite possible to overrate the negative effect of this kind of enzyme.

In the second place, the author claims that a new-found chemical which can prevent the breaking of neuropeptides has effectively acted on rats to restore their memory. Generally speaking, the experiment conducted on rats is just the first step of pharmacological research, it is too optimistic and perfunctory for the author to make his conclusion merely base on a result that came from the nascent stage. There exists huge differences between the physiological structure of human and rat, the statement fails to preclude the possibility that the taking of this compound will lead to opposite consequence in which the results may turn out to be useless and even dangerous.

The most unpersuasive and ridiculous sentence appeared in the author's conclusion that the use of new compounds will improve the students' performance in school. In the beginning of the article, the research shows that PEP won't apparently do damage to the neuropeptides until one grow older. However, in fact, the physiological and mental state of students are exactly on their rising stage, according to the theory that the author cited, the breaking of neuropeptides does not occur during that time. Also, all that has been discussed in the statement are focused on the influence of PEP and new-found compounds upon people's memory status, (这句怎么看都有点不对劲，重点帮我看下，the influence... upon...) which has totally no relationship with the students' difficulty on concentration. Further, no evidence is available to indicate that parents and teachers have no useful solution for the students' bad performance in school.

To sum up, the statement is seriously weaken by various kinds of logical flaws which lead to fallacious and even contradictory reasoning. Pharmacology is a field with the most strict safety requirements, and any irrational thinking and imprudent decision will lead to unpredictable dangerous consequence.

zhangwanyingUID: 2775533

又改了一遍，帮我看看哈谢谢 4# how_to