GRE寫作經(jīng)典范文詳細(xì)解析15

　　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)

　　[題目]

　　隨著人們?nèi)諠u衰老，一種被稱為PEP的酶會(huì)不斷地分解學(xué)習(xí)與記憶過(guò)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。在測(cè)試中，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(yùn)用應(yīng)該也推廣到記憶力衰弱或?qū)Ｗ⒘τ欣щy的學(xué)生身上，不然將會(huì)造成學(xué)業(yè)表現(xiàn)上的嚴(yán)重問(wèn)題。科學(xué)終于解決了那些令家長(zhǎng)和老師束手無(wú)策的問(wèn)題。

　　[范文正文]

　　在本段論述中，論述者指出，研究人員已發(fā)現(xiàn)了某些化合物，可以阻止一種被稱為PEP的酶的物質(zhì)將神經(jīng)肽予以分解，而神經(jīng)肽則是學(xué)習(xí)和記憶過(guò)程中所需涉及到的物質(zhì)。論述者還宣稱，檢測(cè)結(jié)果表明，這些化合物幾乎完全恢復(fù)了老鼠身上缺失的記憶。因此這些化合物應(yīng)該讓那些記憶力差和難于集中注意力的學(xué)生服用。這段論述缺乏說(shuō)服力，因?yàn)樗承┻壿嬐评矸矫嫔鯙閲?yán)重的缺陷。

　　首先，論述者稱，隨著人們漸趨衰老，PEP 會(huì)分解學(xué)習(xí)和記憶過(guò)程中所涉及的神經(jīng)肽化學(xué)物。確實(shí)，隨人們漸趨衰老，他們往往會(huì)在學(xué)習(xí)和記憶方面遭遇諸多問(wèn)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(méi)有提到任何直接的聯(lián)系。除此之外，論述者提及被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)的只是一種可阻止神經(jīng)肽不致于分裂的化合物。這是兩種不同性質(zhì)的物理作用：神經(jīng)肽化學(xué)物的分解有別于神經(jīng)肽自身的分裂。

　　此外，原論述并未陳述這兩種物理作用中的那一種與學(xué)習(xí)能力和記憶能力的喪失相涉。論述者沒(méi)有明確陳述化學(xué)物的分解導(dǎo)致了學(xué)習(xí)能力和記憶能力的喪失，而只是陳述這種情形只是隨著人們?nèi)遮吥赀~而發(fā)生。原論述中也沒(méi)有確切地陳述神經(jīng)肽自身的分裂是否會(huì)導(dǎo)致記憶缺失或?qū)W習(xí)能力下降。如果無(wú)法在阻止神經(jīng)肽分裂所能產(chǎn)生的作用與減少記憶能力和學(xué)習(xí)能力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(jìn)行了測(cè)試。雖然老鼠與人類具有類似的基因結(jié)構(gòu)，但它們無(wú)論如何并不等同于人類。對(duì)于學(xué)習(xí)和記憶問(wèn)題，老鼠所遇到的原因很可能全然不同于人類所遇到的原因。在沒(méi)有作進(jìn)一步的研究來(lái)估評(píng)化合物對(duì)人類所產(chǎn)生的總體效果的情況下，就去提倡將這些化合物供學(xué)生服用，甚至假設(shè)它們有助于學(xué)生提高其學(xué)習(xí)效果，這實(shí)乃荒唐至極。即使不是出于其他原因的話，就這一特定事實(shí)本身，該段論述根本就站不住腳。

　　進(jìn)一步而言，論述者在其論述的開始陳述道，"隨著人們漸趨衰老"，PEP會(huì)將學(xué)習(xí)和記憶過(guò)程中所涉及的神經(jīng)肽化學(xué)物進(jìn)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)生普遍而言都是年輕人，而不是老年人。論述者沒(méi)有拿出任何證據(jù)來(lái)證明究竟是什么原因?qū)嶋H導(dǎo)至學(xué)生們記憶力和專注力下降。較有可能的是，是那些課外活動(dòng)，或缺少充足的睡眠，導(dǎo)致了學(xué)生身上的這些問(wèn)題。

　　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(wèn)題和學(xué)習(xí)能力下降問(wèn)題，它們也極不可能也能為學(xué)生帶來(lái)任何的裨益。 總而言之，論述者沒(méi)能用其提出的論據(jù)來(lái)說(shuō)服我們。若要使其論述在邏輯上成立，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某種直接的聯(lián)系。此外，論述者必須證明學(xué)生記憶能力差和注意力難以集中均是同一過(guò)程造成的，并且研究人員所發(fā)現(xiàn)的化合物對(duì)人類所產(chǎn)生的效果會(huì)對(duì)老鼠似乎所產(chǎn)生的效果同樣的好。