A arguer states that researchers have found compounds that keep an enzyme
known as PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart, which are known to be involved
in learning and memory. The arguer states that tests have shown that these
compounds almost completely restored lost memory in rats, and that therefore,
these compounds should be administered to students with poor memory and
difficulty in concentrating. This argument is unconvincing because it contains
several critical flaws in logic.
First of all, the arguer states that as
people grow older, PEP breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals that are involved
in learning and memory. It is true that generally, as people get older, they
tend to have more problems with learning and memory. However, there is no direct
link mentioned between the breaking down of the neuropeptide chemicals and the
loss of learning ability or memory. Additionally, the arguer mentions
neuropeptide chemicals that are broken down by PEP. What the researchers have
found is a compound that prevents neuropeptides from breaking apart. These are
two different physical actions: the breaking down of neuropeptide chemicals as
opposed to the breaking apart of the neuropeptides themselves. Furthermore, it
is not stated which of these physical actions is involved with the loss of
learning ability and memory. It is not explicitly stated that the breaking down
of chemicals causes a loss in learning ability and memory, only that this
happens as people grow older. It is also not expressly stated whether the
breaking apart of the neuropeptides themselves causes memory loss or a lessened
learning ability. Without showing a direct link between the effect of keeping
the neuropeptides from breaking apart and a reduction in the loss of memory and
learning ability, the efficacy of the compounds is called into
question.
Secondly and most obviously, the compounds were only tested on
rats. Rats may have a similar genetic structure to humans, but they are most
certainly not the same as humans. There may be different causes for the learning
and memory problems in rats as opposed to that of humans. The effect of the
compounds on rats may also be very different from their effect on human beings.
It is absurd in the extreme to advocate giving these compounds to students, even
assuming that they would help the students with their studies, without
conducting further studies assessing the compounds' overall effects on humans.
The argument fails on this particular fact if for no other
reason.
Additionally, the arguer begins his or her argument by stating that
"as people grow older", PEP breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals involved in
learning and memory. At the end of the argument, the arguer advocates extending
the compounds that prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart to students who
have poor memory and difficulty in concentrating. Students are generally young,
not older people. There is no evidence presented that shows what actually causes
students to have a poor memory or difficulty in concentrating. Indeed, it is
more likely that it is extracurricular activities or a lack of sleep that causes
such problems in students, not a problem associated with aging. It is highly
unlikely that even if the stated compounds could help prevent the memory loss
and decreased learning ability associated with aging that it would have any
benefits for students.
In summary, the arguer fails to convince with the
argument as presented. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must show a direct
link between the breaking apart of neuropeptides and loss of memory and learning
ability. Additionally, he or she must show that students' poor memory and
difficulty in concentrating is a result of the same process, and that the
researcher's compounds would have as beneficial an effect on humans as it seems
to have on rats.The best way to improve memory should be exercise, just like an
operational ball mill cannot
be rusty.
上一篇: New sand maker accelerated by domestic projects 下一篇: Importance to explore their own emotions
发表评论 评论 (0 个评论)