GRE Argument: 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.

My Response Essay:

The author asserts that the solution to increase memory levels and ability to concentrate has been found by researchers. To support this assertion, she cites some observations made by researchers in experiments on rats. Looking deep into the argument, however, I find scanty evidence to ratify the author's claim.

The argument refers to the observation that the new compounds restored lost memory in rats but he does not mention anything about whether these compounds have any effects in human beings when memory is in development phase e.g. in children. It is quite possible that these compounds do not have any positive effect in this phase and are only useful in restoring lost memory. Moreover, it has been previously mentioned in the argument that these compounds are involved in learning also but no observation regarding this apsect has been given. So it is also likely that the application of these compuonds results in slowing down of learning process at the stake of improving memory.

Most importantly, the author does not cite any evidence that the use of these new compounds has been proved to be beneficial to humans. Perhaps, these compounds' utility is limited to only rats, and these compunds are useless for human bodies. For that matter, it is entirely possible that these new compounds have some side effects which might impede learning and memory in human beings, or might be fatal to human life. Moreover, the author does not give us any indication on how many experiments have been performed even on rats. Maybe what has been observed is only a fleeting phenomenon i.e. the lost memory gets restored only for a few hours or a few days after which the memory levels deteriorate rapidly and even rats end up having less memory than what they had at the start of the experiments.



On top of all this, the author makes sweeping recommendation for using these compounds on students having difficulty in concentrating. Even if we assume that the new compunds will be beneficial to humans in the same way as to rats, there is no evidence to accept that claim that the compounds will also contribute to increased concentration. Perhaps, since these are causing memory levels to increase, they will have negative effects on concentration. If so, such students will further suffer in their academic performance.

In sum, it is not warranted on the basis of available informaion to recommend the use of the new compunds on students -- or for that matter on any human being. To bolster the argument, the author must provide corroborative evidence that the new compounds will benefit human beings also in the same way as that in case of rats. She must also present clear evidence that the compounds will tend to improve concentration in school-going students, and there are no sgnificant side effects of them. To better evaluate the argument, I would also need more details on the experiments' time span of observation.

The above is an unrated response. For 6 scored essays, see Essays scored 6 by ETS's E-rater

For more on GRE: click at GRE Resources