argument160[AWER小组] 求拍 谁能讨论一下文中的第二点,谢谢

JasonDoveUID: 2322013

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.
WORDS: 405          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008/3/6 19:48:10

In the argument, the author's conclusion is that science can solve problems which teachers and parents could not. It is well-presented but not well-reasoned. There are several facets that are questionable. I will discuss them in turn.

First and foremost, the author's claim that the new compounds should be used on students who have poor memory and difficulty in concentrating is unwarranted. There is a myriad of differences between human beings and rats, including biological structure and living condition. It is possible that these new compounds are not effective to human beings in improving their memories or perhaps chemical elements that are useful to help rats restore their lost memory can cause some side-effects such as serious diseases to human beings.

Even if the result of the study is accepted by one and the compounds are suitable for human beings. The result of the study is not reliable to reveal that the new compounds can help students to who have poor memory. In the argument, the author asserts that by the compounds, rats lost memory are restored. That is to say, the rats lost their memory and the compounds made them restored their memory rather than helping them to remember new things. If so, the compounds would only help students to restore their old or lost memories rather than helping them to remember new knowledge. In this way, these new compounds would more valuable if they are used to treat amnesia. Even if the compounds are effective in helping students to remember their knowledge, there is no evidence to show that the new compounds can help students who are difficult in concentrating-and therefore serious problems in school performance.

Even if the author modified the foregoing analysis to be convincing, the author's claim that science finally has the ability to solve problems which parents and teachers could not is still not cogent. This conclusion is too hasty. The compounds that help to improve one's memory is only one case and is not enough to prove the claim above. There is still something that science cannot solve. For example, there are some students whose main problem is being too idle to force themselves to focus on study. Is there any technology that can make them be willing to study? Is there some machine to change their characteristic to be assiduous? I’m afraid there are not. It may seem that one day, such machine or technology would come to us, however, no such evidence or even some minor indication is offered in the argument.

To sum up, the author fails to substantiate his claim that science can finally solve problems which teachers and parents cannot, because evidence in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author maintains. By providing some more detailed information with regard to the study and by demonstrating that the new compounds can do favor to one's ability of concentration, the argument can be more convincing.