GRE作文范文 Argument-8

　　As people grow older,an enzyme known as PEP increasingly breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals involved in learning and memory.But now,researchers haver found compounds that prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart.In tests,thesse compounds almost completely restored lost memory in rats.The use of these compounds should before serious problems in school performance will be reduced.Science finally has a solution for problems neither parents nor teachers could solve.

　　嘉文博譯Sample Essay

　　In this argument,the arguer states that reseachers have found compounds that keep an enzyme known as PEP from breaking neuropetides apart,which are known to be involed in learing and memory. The arguer states that tests have shown that these compounds almost completely restrored lost memory in rats,and thattherefore,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.Itis 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 chemical and the loss of learning ability or memory.Additionally,the arguer mentions neuropeptide chemicals that are broken down of PEP.What the researchers have found is a compound that prevents 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.Itis not explicity stated that breaking down of chemicals causes a loss in ;earning ability and memory, only that this happens as 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 kepping the neuropeptides from breaking apart 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 wereonlytested 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 humans beings.It is adsurd 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 er argument by stating that"as people grow older",PEP breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals involved in leaving and memory.At the end of the argument,the arguer advocates extending the compounds that prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart to students who haver poor memory and diffculty in concentrating.Students are generally young,not older people.There is no difficulty in concentrating.Indeed,it is more likely that it is extracurricular activities or a lack of sleep that cause such problems in students,not a problem associated with aging.It is highly unlikely that even if the stated compounds cound 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 diffculty in concentrating is a result of the same process,and that the researcher's compounds would have as beneficial an effec on humans as it seems to haver on rats.

　　(633 words)

　　參考譯文

　　隨著人們?nèi)諠u衰老，一種被稱為PEP的酶會不斷地分解學(xué)習(xí)與記憶過程中所涉及到的神經(jīng)肽化學(xué)物。但現(xiàn)在，研究人員已發(fā)現(xiàn)了可阻止PEP致使神經(jīng)肽分裂的化合物。在實驗中，這些化合物幾乎在老鼠身上能完全恢復(fù)缺失的記憶。這些化合物的運用應(yīng)該也推廣到記憶力衰弱或?qū)Ｗ⒘τ欣щy的學(xué)生身上，那樣他們在學(xué)業(yè)表現(xiàn)上的這些嚴重問題即可得到緩解，科學(xué)終于解決了那些令家長和老師束手無恥的問題。

　　在本段論述中，論述者指出，研究人員已經(jīng)發(fā)現(xiàn)某些化合物可以阻止一種被稱為PEP的酶的物質(zhì)分解神經(jīng)肽，而神經(jīng)肽則是學(xué)習(xí)和記憶過程中所涉及到的物質(zhì)。論述者還宣稱，檢測結(jié)果表明，這些化合物幾乎完全恢復(fù)了老鼠缺失的記憶。因此這些化合物應(yīng)該讓那些記憶力差的難于集中學(xué)習(xí)的學(xué)生服用。這段論述缺乏說服力，因為它包含著某些邏輯推理方面甚為嚴重的缺陷。

　　首先，論述者稱，隨著人們漸趨衰老，PEP會分解學(xué)習(xí)和記憶過程中所涉及的神經(jīng)肽化學(xué)物。確實，隨著人們漸趨衰老，他們通長會在學(xué)習(xí)和記憶方面遭遇諸多問題。但是，在神經(jīng)肽化學(xué)物的分解以及學(xué)習(xí)能力與記憶力喪失之間，卻沒有提到任何直接的聯(lián)系。除此之外，論述者提及了被PEP所分解的幾種神經(jīng)肽化學(xué)物。但研究人員所發(fā)現(xiàn)的只是一種可阻止射精太不至于分裂的化合物。這時兩種不同性質(zhì)的物理作用：神經(jīng)肽化學(xué)物的分解有別于射精太自身的分裂。再者，原論述并未陳述這兩種物理作用中的哪一種與學(xué)習(xí)能力和記憶能力的喪失有關(guān)。論述者沒有明確陳述這兩種化學(xué)物的分解會導(dǎo)致學(xué)習(xí)能力和記憶能力的喪失，而只是陳述了這種情形只是隨著人們?nèi)遮吽ダ隙l(fā)生。原論述中也沒有確切地陳述神經(jīng)肽自身的分裂是否會導(dǎo)致記憶缺失或?qū)W習(xí)能力下降。如果無法在阻止神經(jīng)肽分裂所能產(chǎn)生的作用于減少記憶能力和學(xué)習(xí)能力的喪失之間證明某種直接的聯(lián)系，那么，化合物的效用將令人質(zhì)疑。

　　第二，也是極為明顯地，化合物只是在老鼠身上進行了實驗。雖然老鼠與人類具有類似的基因結(jié)構(gòu)，但他們無論如何并不等同于人類。造成老鼠學(xué)習(xí)和記憶問題的原因很可能全然不同于造成人類學(xué)習(xí)和記憶問題的原因。在沒有進一步的研究來評估化合物對人類所產(chǎn)生的總體效果的情況下，就提倡學(xué)生服用這些化合物，甚至假設(shè)他們會有助于學(xué)生提高其學(xué)習(xí)效果，這實在荒唐至極。即使沒有其他原因，就這一特定事實本身而論，該段論述也根本就站不住腳。

　　進一步而言，論述者在其論述的開始稱，“隨著人們漸趨衰老”，PEP會將學(xué)習(xí)和記憶過程中所涉及的神經(jīng)肽化學(xué)物進行分解。在論述的結(jié)尾之處，論述者倡導(dǎo)將那些可阻止PEP致使神經(jīng)肽分裂的化合物推廣至那些記憶力和專注力差的學(xué)生身上。學(xué)生一般都是年輕人，而不是老年人。論述者沒有拿出任何證據(jù)來證明究竟是什么原因?qū)嶋H導(dǎo)致學(xué)生們記憶力和專注力下降。事實上，更有可能是那些課外活動，或缺少充足的睡眠，導(dǎo)致了學(xué)生的這些問題與衰老毫無關(guān)系。即使所提及的那些化合物真的有助于防止與衰老毫無關(guān)系。即使所提及的那些化合物真的有助于防止與衰老相關(guān)的記憶缺失問題和學(xué)習(xí)能力下降問題，也極不可能會給學(xué)生帶來任何的裨益。

　　總而言之，論述者沒有能說服我們，若要使其論點成立，論述者必須在神經(jīng)肽的分裂與記憶能力和學(xué)習(xí)能力的缺失之間證明有某種直接的聯(lián)系。此外，論述者也必須證明學(xué)生記憶能力差和注意力難以集中均是同一過程造成的，并且研究員所發(fā)現(xiàn)的化合物對人類產(chǎn)生的效果會與對老鼠似乎所產(chǎn)生的效果同樣好。