argument160 吃药医治记性差的,写的越来越郁闷了,真该吃药了

子旋UID: 2196177

17Argument160 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.
Words: 427
In this argument, the author claims that the compound should be extended to students who have poor memory and difficulty in concentrating and usually make bad performance in schools. He cited that this compound verifies its good effect on rats in the experiments and indicated that PEP is prevented from breaking neuroptides. However, the evidences in it are not full enough in supporting the argument. It is organized logically but not reasoned and looses the necessary proofs.

First, the arguer makes a hasty generalization on people and fails to consider the possible effect of this compound on human. He indicated that these compounds restored lost memory in rats. However, no evidence have been revealed that they are also effective for human. First, it is a common sense for us that the complex system in our brains is a big problem during any experiments of medicine researches. Though the rats have commonplace as human, we can not simply claim that there is on differentia between these two populations. Second, we may loose evidence to verify the safeness of these compounds. Is it safe for the lives or have some impact on the bodies in a long time? We should still make further experiments to examine their side-effect. It is possible that they are effective especially for rats because the rats synthesis a respective chemical helping the reaction of these compounds.

Further more, the author loose to consider the feasibility of extending these compounds to students in order to improve their bad memory. The students having bad memory and difficulty in concentrating may be of various situations. The possible reasons are varied from them. Firstly, the gene of the student is a foundational factor in their memory. Some bad memory cannot be changed easily even with a useful medicine. Second, it is possible that the way of memory is not fitted for them and they may have a long progress to adopt the scientific methods. Other factors as the interests of other things like some games, or a bad impact around, the false way be educated by both the parents and teachers, are also lead to their poor memory and difficulty in concentrating.

Above all, the author fails to consider other possibilities in the experiment and also of the leading factors of memory and learning. All the fallacies above are obvious and need to be revised with evidences before the author’s conclusion, such as the treatment effect on patients and its side-effect. Also, we should not make a statement that science finally has a solution to problems so hastily.