Please rate - "As people grow older, an enzyme known as PEP increasingly breaks ..."

[nisheeth]

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.

Analysis of argument ---

Given argument claims that a breakthrough has been achieved in the field of human learning and memory, and now students with poor memory and learning capabilities can be treated. This claim is made on the basis of research which restored lost memory in rats, by using some compounds which inhibit PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart. At first glance, this argument seems to be a valid one, but closer inspection reveals that it builds upon some very specious assumptions.

First of all, it is tacitly assumed that the compounds which worked on lab rats, under experimental conditions would also work on humans in normal conditions. No information regarding clinical tests on real humans has been given. If these compounds are found to be toxic for humans then the entire research would be wasted.

Another fallacy of the argument lies in the hidden assumption that PEP and neuropeptides are the only components which affect memory and learning capabilities in humans. There might be other chemicals involved in the learning and memory processes, which are not known yet. If the lack of learning and memory capabilities is due to lack or imbalance of these chemicals or enzymes then the research given in argument above would not be able to help such people at all.

It is wrong on part of the author to say that students lack some learning capabilities purely due to some brain malfunction. It is possible that the student is not interested in studying and so she doesn’t memorize the details etc. In such cases also the breakthrough stated in given argument would be useless. It is also possible that slow learning in students is due to lack of neuropeptide chemicals, but this is not being caused due to PEP enzymes at all.

In conclusion, one can say that the argument is flawed and it deserves no merit. It is based purely on some hidden assumptions which probably would be false and thus is using specious reasoning. The argument would be more convincing if the author provides information of clinical human subject trials, research disproving involvement of any other chemicals in learning and memory processes and statistics correlation slow learning and bad memory in students to lack of neuropeptide chemicals DUE to PEP enzymes.