|
|
Sample Response to Real GRE Argument Questions
Topic # 8
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.
In this argument, the 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.
(633 words) |
