emulate 小组 第10次作业贴 andrew_zwi

Andrew_zwiUID: 2670942

【题目】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.


提纲：
1.这些物质在老鼠身上能恢复记忆，不代表能在人身上恢复记忆。人于老鼠有很多的不同，如脑结构，神经系统neural system等
2，即使1成立，研究未说明PEP对neuropeptide chemicals的分解是影响年轻人记忆力差的主要原因，可能年轻人PEP很低，对于neuropeptide chemicals的影响很小，这时这些物质可能根本起不到作用。
3.即使2成立，作者也不能说这些物质能解决学生记忆力差和注意力不集中的问题，因为引起这些原因不一定是neuropeptide chemicals分解，可能是学生本身对于学习就不感兴趣，或者老师家长教育方法不对。
字数： 424

正文：

In this memo, the arguer suggests that certain compounds should be administered to students with poor memory and concentration to improve their performance in school. To substantiate this proposition, the arguer cites a research in which these compounds that prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart almost completely restored lost memory in rats. Admittedly, this suggestion seems to be somewhat convincing, but further cogitation reveals that it omits some substantial assumptions that constitute a logical argument.

The foremost and fundamental assumption upon which this argument rests is that effects of those compounds on rats are similar to human beings. The arguer’s assumption might nevertheless be unwarranted. Perhaps the same effects would be ineffective on human due to brain system and neutral system differences between human beings and rats. In short lacking evidence that conditions on human are relevantly similar, the author cannot convince me that that PEP will achieve the similar result in entirely different environment.

Even assuming that those compounds are similar to rats and human, the arguer relies on the additional supposition that the PEP breaks down the chemicals in young people. However, the arguer seems to fails to provide any evidence to support this assumption. Perhaps PEP increases as people age, as the arguer points out, thus the amount of PEP is much lower in the young people's bodies than that in elders’. For that matter, PEP may have no significant effects on students’ learning. Since the arguer has failed to consider and rule out these possibilities, the arguer's assertion cannot be taken seriously.

Even if those compounds are really effective, the argument also assumes that PEP is the key factor making for poor memory and difficulty in concentrating. Yet the author fails to provide evidence to support those problems was caused by PEP—rather than some other factors. Common sense and experience tell us this is not the case, and a variety of other factors, such as students’ interest in study and the ways how teachers and parents guide their students also play major roles. Without considering and ruling out these and other factors, the author cannot justifiably conclude that science finally has a solution for problems neither parents nor teachers could solve.

In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive and unreceptive as it stands. To bolster it, the arguer should provide more information that problems of some students are a result of lacking memory. Additionally, to better evaluate the argument, the arguer must account for all other factors that might influence poor memory and difficulty in concentrating. Therefore, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.