to lake 攻击confusion,不就是说相关性并不等于因果关系么？
还是绕，呵呵 这次行不?
http://211.151.90.54/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138506 to lake 攻击confusion,不就是说相关性并不等于因果关系么？
还是绕，呵呵
看原题：“correlation“ between high iron levels and heart disease, then, is most probably a function of the “correlation“ between。。。那那都是correlation ，“没有“因果关系的影子。
是要否定function.
本人关于argu142 红肉题 观点的完全版
142.The article entitled 'Eating Iron' in last month's issue of Eating for Health reported that a recent study found a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. Further, it is well established that there is a link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease, and red meat is high in iron. On the basis of the study and the well-established link between red meat and heart disease, we can conclude that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, then, is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.注意：
well established是不用攻击的。
function是函数的意思。A is a function of B 指B得出A(即使我们把function理解成作用，结论是一样的:B是本质，A是现象)
本题根本没有推导原因：通篇都在谈CORRELATION而没有得出病因！因此不要写原题的因果关系不成立或相关推不出因果。原题根本没有因果嘛。
原题的逻辑是：study说明铁与病有关（可以无奈的做个庸俗攻击）；well established的理论说明肉和病有关，且肉里铁多。得出：肉与病的关系--〉铁与病的关系。关键证伪这个“--〉”即function
由于两个论据实际上只是描述现象（关系）因此都没的攻击，只有结论可攻击。
关于下面两篇参考文章中的问题：
silentwings的错误：red meat引起心脏病------------> red meat 里面还有大量的铁 ------------------> 高铁引起心脏病。
原题没说引起。
happyman2000的错误：这是一个变态的句子，根据我们的常理，以上因果关系应当完全倒过来才说得通，所以，故意颠倒原因与结果。happyman2000似乎认为：铁是一种可能致病的元素，而红肉只是载体，因此应该是铁与病有关->肉与病有关。
但是本题恰是肉与病有关已经well established，不是故意颠倒因果（但这道题是故意难为我们的）。大家不要想当然。
他的攻击：直接攻击，1，铁不一定能引起心脏病；2，即使铁能引起心脏病，并不意味着含铁的红肉能引起心脏病。显然不对。
但是happyman的这句话是对的：上文最后一句话的理解应该就是铁与心脏病的关系是由红肉与心脏病的关系决定的，即红肉和心脏病有关系，所以铁才和心脏病有关系。
我们要说明这个function不成立 。方法：given铁与心脏病有关系，且红肉与心脏病也有关系，但如果人们不吃红肉而吃其他的高铁食物 （他因），那么，原题结论function就完蛋了。
另外：常见的攻击方法：肉里有其他致病物导致心脏病。似乎是无效的，因为不论怎么折腾病因，相关关系还是存在的！攻击无效。
参考文章：
slientwing:
析题：仔细读过，发现这道题有点绕，很多考生曾经有过这样的困惑：“我没有理解最后一句话的意思 is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.是说 high iron level 于 heart disease之间的关系 是 red meat 与 heart disease之间有关的结果 那作者到底是认为 high iron level 和 heart disease之间有没有关系阿？” 再读之下，我们会发现作者其实做了一个顺接推论：red meat引起心脏病------------> red meat 里面还有大量的铁 ------------------> 高铁引起心脏病，就是这么一个简单的推论过程，关键认清谁推出谁，就要在审题时注意到关键的这么看似不经意却被友好的ETS“重复两次”的短语“well established”，也就是说“大量红肉与心脏病之间一定有联系”是不容质疑的论据，即本题论据是不容批驳的，关键问题在于由论据推导出结论的时候犯了“Implicit causal claims”和“gratuitous assumptions”（详细逻辑谬误分类见后文 “七宗罪”），因而我们就可以以次展开攻击。很多来自网上的文章和提纲在本题上颠倒了推导对象，把“高铁引起心脏病”作为论据来推出“red meat引起心脏病”，结果导致文章失误。下面读者可通过以下范文检验一下该论证过程和思路：
（范文）
The correlation of the high irons level and heart disease the arguer trying to prove is not as perfect as he assumes. Although at first glance, his cause-and-effect analysis seems quite cogent, yet it can't stand much reexamination.
I agree to the well-established theory concerning the necessary relation between the large amount of red meat in people's diet and heart disease, but no other possibilities can be ruled out except for one of the ingredients-iron. It is obvious that the arguer constructs his building of conclusion on the basis of the conviction of the deleterious function stems from the iron. While not only a single iron does red meat contain, as we all know, many other components also have the influential role once being indigested into human body. For instance, some type of particular protein it might include, instead of the iron, is the substantial root of heart attack. So the arguer's peroration has no convincing power for this gratuitous assumption.
Moreover, even though his deduction does really derive from some passage of authoritative researches he has no opportunity to list below, the assertion about the high levels of iron related to the possibility of heart disease cannot be got through by merely so qualified the evidence exhibited here. According to the arguer's elicitation, we believe the red meat does contain large amount of iron, however, we might ask ourselves such questions enlightened by our common sense, "Does the amount of iron involved in red meat reach the dangerous level enough to lead to heart disease?" The answer we can't obtain through this short argument, thus directly make us doubt the whole fruits the arguer attained.
As it stands, the study reported on the published media Eating for Health is inevitable filled with some lethal logic fallacies, which finally weakens the cogency of the whole claims. To such a paramount and sensitive issue relative to people's health and life, scrutiny is not allowed to be neglected; and it is just for this point, I'm afraid, no people could ultimately abjure for eating red meat as a result of reading this ridiculous article. (352 words)
happyman2000
No.1 再讨论一道argument超级难题，argument 142
142.The article entitled 'Eating Iron' in last month's issue of Eating for Health reported that a recent study found a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. Further, it is well established that there is a link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease, and red meat is high in iron. On the basis of the study and the well-established link between red meat and heart disease, we can conclude that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, then, is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.
这个题目的理解关键在于最后一句话，从字典中查到对function的一个解释，
Something closely related to another thing and dependent on it for its existence, value, or significance: 应变物与另一决定它的存在、价值或重要性的事物密切相关的事物。
例句：1，Growth is a function of nutrition.长身体是由营养决定的
2，X is a function of Y. X是Y的函数（即X的值由Y决定）。
3，A is a function of B. A由B决定。
根据这个解释，上文最后一句话的理解应该就是铁与心脏病的关系是由红肉与心脏病的关系决定的，即红肉和心脏病有关系，所以铁才和心脏病有关系。
这是一个变态的句子，根据我们的常理，以上因果关系应当完全倒过来才说得通，所以，故意颠倒原因与结果，可能就是一个主要的攻击点。但是，如果抓住这点进行攻击，就等于我们承认了铁能够引起心脏病，从而红肉也能引起心脏病，这就把后路堵死了，很难再找到第二个攻击点了。如果不对这点进行攻击，倒是可以凑上几段，但很明显忽略掉了最主要的问题，攻击变成了隔靴搔痒。
我都怀疑ETS是不是把这道题搞错了，如果最后一句话的因果关系颠倒一下，不就很好写吗？直接攻击，1，铁不一定能引起心脏病；2，即使铁能引起心脏病，并不意味着含铁的红肉能引起心脏病。有其他原因导致心脏病，有铁的吸收问题等等。
我看了几片流行的提纲和范文，基本上都是按照对题意错误的理解写的。大家看看，有何高见！ 大概懂你的意思了
高铁和心脏病的关系是由红肉和心脏病的关系决定的
那么通过and red meat is high in iron是否把两个correlation连在一起了呢？
那么是否可以理解是AB的关系由CB的关系决定，而A属于C，那么CB的关系就可以决定AB的关系，也就是说，如果CB成立，AB就能成立了呢？
那么AC的关系是用is来链接的，客观事实，不能驳斥
而我们可以把CB看成是前提，AB是结论
那么这道题应该不难解决
可以否定CB的关系这个前提，也可以否定CB与AB之间的“function"不存在，或者否定AB
我觉得function不是唯一的驳斥点，而题目也不至于那么变态，唯一不能驳斥的我觉得不是well-established的那个，而是and red meat is high in iron这句。
大家再讨论。。。。 嗯，鬼兄理解力不错。
我写了个帖子，详细讲了我的观点。
只在此坛中，沉底不知处。。。 呵呵
lakeqian幽默啊
我觉得不用想得那么绕吧
题目是有点迷惑的，但是我觉得ETS不会变态到把问题设置的如此陷阱重重的吧
按常理去推测，就是说按大家一般的理解去分析ETS不会算跑题吧
说不太好
俺的逻辑不强HOHO
但是我觉得能证明题目不正确是不是就够了呢，挖的太深会不会把自己绕进去了呢 No.1 Argument142 牛羊肉和心脏病 这篇写的好烂啊. 狠拍吧.
Argument142: 347 words 30 minutes
The article entitled 'Eating Iron' in last month's issue of Eating for Health reported that a recent study found a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. Further, it is well established that there is a link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease, and red meat is high in iron. On the basis of the study and the well-established link between red meat and heart disease, we can conclude that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, then, is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.
The arguer concedes that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease would be most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease. /*At the first glance ,*/It seems to be reasonable. However, after careful examination, the argument is based on several unconvincing facts.
First/* ly */, the study in the article entitled 'Eating Iron' in last month's issue of Eating for Health (EFH) would not be reliable. The arguer fails to give any reliable statistics about the result, such as the random sample of people being studied, the professional agency who made the study. Also, the reason of heart disease is various, maybe the heart diseases were mostly likely to be caused by the genie passed by the parents, or some sudden stroke or movements. So it would hasty to conclude such a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease.
Second/*ly*/, even we assume that the study' is reliable, there is no proof of the correlation between red meat and heart disease. There are still many things needed to be consider/*词态*/, perhaps red meat may not be the main cause of the diseases. There are many other things high/*缺谓语*/ in iron, such as fruit and vegetables. Without such considering/*consideration*/, the arguer's conclusion of the correlation is open to doubt.
Third/*ly*/, even the correlation between red meat and heart disease is believable; the arguer fails to establish that the reason for the correlation of high iron levels and heart disease is the function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease. There would be many other things which contain iron, although red meat contains a lot of iron, Perhaps the study was taken in an area which the eating water was with a high level of iron. Only when much detailed information about whether an eating diet really determines the heart disease provided /*词态*/would the argument sounds /*would be logically accept */more reasonable.
In conclusion, the argument was/*词态*/ poorly supported as it stands. To be more reliable and convincing, the arguer should taken /*词态*/more condition into account and provide more detailed information.
老兄，写的是不是急了点，有些表达不是很地道呀，而且语法错误挺多的。呵呵，跟我的错误差不了多少，加油呀，me too!
Good luck!
BTW:你几时考呀？俺是9.3 希望考时好运。 我今天也写了这个argument，看了大家的讨论觉得自己也跑题了，因为我对题目的理解是
a 高铁与心脏病有关
b红肉与心脏病有关
c红肉富含铁
所以结论：红肉之所以导致心脏病是因为红肉里富含的铁可导致心脏病 好像这样写起来好写
可是错了错了
本来困的眼睛发直，看了大家的讨论，尤其是lakeqian 和鬼谷子两位大虾的，不仅脑袋连目光都有点弯弯绕了，呵呵
等明天精神好了在好好想一下 在一本作文参考书上发现的范文，似乎在赞同argument中的观点，令见少识窄的我看后瞠目结舌。试问各位前辈，这样也可以？
Consisting of two “correlations,” this argument seems to me at first sight. But I find it reasonable when I relate it may own experience.
It is well established that iron, like calcium, is important for good health. And it is for that reason that some foods (some vegetables, for example) are especially valuable for their iron content, and children have been educated to eat enough such foods so as to take in enough iron. Under these circumstances, it is against our commonsense to say that “high levels of iron in the diet” can lead to "an increased risk of heart disease," found by a recent study and reported in the article entitled "Eating Iron" in last month's issue of Eating for Health.
To establish this correlation, you can either look for evidence provided by further research work, which can be rather costly, or find evidence in something that is "well established" in it. This argument is well reasoned because it is exactly based on such evidence? a second correlation, i.e., "the correlation between red meat and heart disease."
In turn, this second correlation has to be based on something that is also "well established." Well, we have it in the fact that "red meat is high in iron," which is "well established" according to this argument, and is evidenced by my own experience, as follows:
Growing up in a village, I remember how my folks used to make red meat. In those years, I remember, when there was a festival, especially when the Spring Festival was to be ahead, like all village folks, my mother would get extremely busy making good delicious foods. One favorite of mine was red meat. Since I liked it very much, I was curious about how it was made, and did find how: My mother would buy from the nearby drugstore a powdered, red substance, and mix it up with the meat. At that time, I did not know what that substance was. Later on I learned that it is a mineral of iron, which can be used medically, and can be used to give a lovely color to food, especially meat. Comparing this experience of mine, I find the statement that "red meat is high in iron" truly well established.
In this way, a correlation (the one between high iron levels and heart disease) that is hard to become acceptable becomes well established as a result of being evidenced by a well established, second correlation: the one between red meat and heart disease. Namely, the first correlation is most probably a function of the second correlation.