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！ zhuzhu,你真牛！发现了ets的bug,大快人心。
我认为：ets错了；你对于原文的理解是正确的，尤其是be a function of 这个短语的用法正确。
原文的错误在于，最后一句话把函数关系搞颠倒啦！这个弱弱的ets真的是数学不太好。
原文推理路线应该是：
1，发现 high levels of iron in the diet 与 an increased risk of heart disease 有关系。
2，red meat is high in iron，而且长期以来人们认为 large amounts of red meat in the diet与red meat 有关。
3，所以得出结论，large amounts of red meat in the diet与red meat 的关系，决定于，high levels of iron in the diet 与 an increased risk of heart disease 的关系。
非常遗憾的是，ets犯错误了，把这个结论写颠倒了，因此题目错误。
希望众gter高手讨论这个问题。
如果多数人觉得是个错误，我们将向ets写信，指出这个错误。 非常同意楼上两位的分析
You have your point
However that doesn't necessarily mean ETS made a mistake. For my understanding, it is a very common argument: that is the study found the relationship between high iron level and heart disease, but did not point out the source of iron intake; then the arguer goes further by finding that red meat is generally believed to cause heart disease and in addition it contains high level of iron, that is the reason behind the conclusion that iron leads to heart disease being a function of red meat to heart disease. Sounds logical, but the main flaw is that the arguer fails to rule out other possible diets could also contains high iron.This is my view, just FYI. zhuzhu，提的好，以前此题也有争议，
主要是：a function of 的理解，
是ETS把题目出错了，还是我们理解的错误呢？
等我问问...
另外，我觉得写此题时，应该反驳assumption即可。
Re: You have your point
[QUOTE][i]最初由 davidlou 发布[/i][B]However that doesn't necessarily mean ETS made a mistake. For my understanding, it is a very common argument: that is the study found the relationship between h..
以下省略...... [/B][/QUOTE]
I think you fail to understand the underlying logic in this argument.
The main purpose of the argument is to explain why iron causes heart disease,and the answer given by the arguer is that red meat can cause heart disease and red meat contains high levels of iron. You are right when you say that other diets could also contains high iron, but you make a serious mistake if you try to weaken the argument by this means because you preassume what sets out to be proved. That is to say, you firstly acknowledge that iron can cause heart disease(this point is what the arguer and you set out to prove), then you follow that because other diets than red meat contain iron, red meat can not explain for why iron cause heart disease.
In addtion, according to your understanding over the argument, can you find other weak points in the argument to complete your writing? [QUOTE][i]最初由 feier521 发布[/i]
[B]zhuzhu，提的好，以前此题也有争议，
主要是：a function of 的理解，
是ETS把题目出错了，还是我们理解的错误呢？
等我问问...
另外，我觉得写此题时，应该反驳assu..
以下省略...... [/B][/QUOTE]
那个a function of 我查了几本字典，也参考了新东方的翻译，我觉得我的理解应该没有错！
Re: You have your point
[QUOTE][i]最初由 davidlou 发布[/i][B]However that doesn't necessarily mean ETS made a mistake. For my understanding, it is a very common argument: that is the study found the relationship between h..
以下省略...... [/B][/QUOTE]
This explanation has some meaning too.
干脆我把我的这片argument贴出来吧，大家看看有什么意见！
Based upon the two study about the relationship between iron in the idet and heart disease as well as the link between red meat in the diet and heart disease, the arguer concludes that the relationship between red meat and heart disease is most probably explained by the correlation between red meat and heart disease. Well represented thought at first glance, the argument commits a highly confused logic and thus draws a meaningless conclusion.In the first place, all the reasoning and logic in the argument are based upon such a warranted assumption that iron and red meat can cause heart disease. This assumption is unwarranted because the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between high iron levels or red meat and the increased risk of heart disease. It is quite possible that due to some otherwise useful nutritions in red meat or other diet with high levels of iron, patients suffering from heart disease begin to eat these food under the guidance of docters. In this case, there is only a statistical relationship between iron or red meat and heart disease, and high iron levels or red meat contributes nothing to heart disease.
Granted that iron and red meat can cause heart disease, the argument above still fails to adduce any meaningful reason for the relationship between high iron levels and heart disease; however, explaining this relationship is the major concern of the arguer. In the argument above, the underlying logic is that red meat causes heart disease and due to the high levels of iron in red meat, iron therefore gives rise to heart disease. This logic is absurd because it tells nothing about why red meat cause heart disease. Without answering this question, we still cannot understand the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease because it simply converts one question into another question.
Furthermore, a careful examination will reveal that under the logic of the arguer, there would be no possibility to attain a reasonable explanation about why red meat cause heart disease. If the arguer attributes the reason to high iron levels in red meat, undoubtedly he/she mistakeny preassumes what sets out to be proved.That is to say, the arguer uses the conclusion that he/she tends to prove to consolidate his/her presumption and then based upon this unwarranted presumption, the arguer deduces the desired conclusion.On the other hand, if the arguer concedes that it is some other factors rather than iron in red meat that cause heart disease, then it will mean a denial of the conclusion that high iron levels have relation to heart disease.
To sum up, due to unwarranted assumption and disordered logic, the argument above does not provide us with any meaningful explanation for the conclusion in the recent study reported in Eating for Health. 我还是觉得ets的原来的理解是正确的，按那个理解方法也可以按zhuzhu 的理解来批啊/ Your analysis is so complicated, maybe I can understand your meaning, but I bet, ETS won't. I think you should give a simple explanation.
This is my review.
Based upon the two study(studies) about the relationship between iron in the idet and heart disease as well as the link between red meat in the diet and heart disease, the arguer concludes that the relationship between red meat and heart disease is most probably explained by the correlation between red meat and heart disease. Well represented thought at first glance, the argument commits a highly confused logic and thus draws a meaningless conclusion.
In the first place, all the reasoning and logic in the argument are based upon such a warranted(unwarranted) assumption that iron and red meat can cause heart disease. This assumption is unwarranted because the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between high iron levels or red meat and the increased risk of heart disease. It is quite possible that due to some otherwise useful nutritions in red meat or other diet with high levels of iron, patients suffering from heart disease begin to eat these food under the guidance of docters. In this case, there is only a statistical relationship between iron or red meat and heart disease, and high iron levels or red meat contributes nothing to heart disease.
Granted that iron and red meat can cause heart disease, the argument above still fails to adduce any meaningful reason for the relationship between high iron levels and heart disease; however, explaining this relationship is the major concern of the arguer. In the argument above, the underlying logic is that red meat causes heart disease and due to the high levels of iron in red meat, iron therefore gives rise to heart disease. This logic is absurd because it tells nothing about why red meat cause heart disease.(confusion!!!!You havn't give valid explanation!I think the statement implys that because high iron in the red meat cause the desease and you also have mentioned.I think, here,you want to pave way fot your next paragraph, but yourself seem confused ) Without answering this question, we still cannot understand the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease because it simply converts one question into another question.
Furthermore, a careful examination will reveal that under the logic of the arguer, there would be no possibility to attain a reasonable explanation about why red meat cause heart disease. If the arguer attributes the reason to high iron levels in red meat, undoubtedly he/she mistakeny preassumes what sets out to be proved.That is to say, the arguer uses the conclusion that he/she tends to prove to consolidate his/her presumption and then based upon this unwarranted presumption, the arguer deduces the desired conclusion.On the other hand, if the arguer concedes that it is some other factors rather than iron in red meat that cause heart disease, then it will mean a denial of the conclusion that high iron levels have relation to heart disease.
To sum up, due to unwarranted assumption and disordered logic, the argument above does not provide us with any meaningful explanation for the conclusion in the recent study reported in Eating for Health. 如果用这个问题问ETS，感觉象问某个本来是批驳点的地方是不是写错了。
实际上不过是一个逻辑错误而已。
这个题目是高频考题，大家讨论充分点！
to grill:(confusion!!!!You havn't give valid explanation!I think the statement implys that because high iron in the red meat cause the desease and you also have mentioned.I think, here,you want to pave way fot your next paragraph, but yourself seem confused )
我说的问题就在这。这个argument要证明的是铁为什么引起心脏病，它给出的原因是红肉引起心脏病。现在我问的是，为什么红肉会引起心脏病？你认为原文已经给出了答案，就是因为红肉含铁。这里，你难道没有发觉它是一个赤裸裸的循环论证吗？
to crossinggrainbow，
我也倾向于认为最后一句话只不过是犯了一个逻辑错误而已，但是如果你试图来攻击这个逻辑错误时，你会发现很不好展开论述。更要命的是，你一旦选择从这个角度（循环论证）发动攻击，就很难再从其他角度（大家最容易想到的，如忽略其它含铁食品等等）展开攻击，因为从别的角度展开的攻击本身就犯了你要攻击的循环论证的错误。所以，我说大多数范文和提纲都是有问题的，因为他们自己就就犯了循环论证的错误。之所以大家没有觉察，是因为多数人没有意识到这个argument还隐含着循环论证的错误。
这就是我对这个题目感到困惑的原因。 happyDD 我制造了一篇出来，你看看，也许我说得简单，而且把你的问题绕过去了！
In the author's opinion,the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease. The conclusion has been simply based on a study in an article about the link betwwn iron levels and heart desease and a fact ,which assumed well-established ,is a rellationship between red meat and heart disease.But the assumptions and reasons seem immature and hasten.
First, the author presented a study in an article entitled "Eating Iron",but the study fail to give many important infomation about what amount of iron a man ingest or how much a person ingest one day can cause heart desease.Maybe the study carried in a particular experimental situation that no common meat and food in daily life can reach the standard. Only when a person accidently ingest great amount of iron in a chemical bottle contained iron material can reach the standard.It also don't explain whih morphes of the iron is. Is it compound or element? If it's compound, which compoud will cause heart disease. In fact the article didn't give such specifics but important information, without these evidence, any conclusion is baseless and unwarrant.
It is mentioned that their is a link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease, and red meat is high in iron.But this assuption is so ambiguous and also loss specific data and evidence. what amout of iron is contained in one kilogram? similar as above, which kind of iron contained in the red meat? their is not a single datum about this fact. Maybe until one person ingest iron contained in one hundred kilograms in a day,it will reaches the critical standard that will cause heart disease. But obviously no person has such a diet, so the study is meaningless.Addtionarly, perhaps it is not only iron but other harmful harmful ingredents contained in red meat cause heart disease, after all, no references prove that only iron can cause heart disease.
Further, the auther made a hasten conclusion that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.There are two flaws about the statement.One is that their is no evidence demonstrate that only red meat contain iron, maybe many other meat and vegetable contain iron , and even more iron. Without eliminating these possibilities, one can't made the exclusive conlusion.Thus , even granted that all the studies and reasons author preasented is true, it is more reasonable to conclude that the correlation between high red meat and heart disease is a function of the correlation between iron levels and heart disease and vis reverse is obviously wrong.
In sum, their are no specific data and evidence provided about correlation between high iron levels and heart disease and correlation between red meat and heart disease and the author even give a illogical conclusion. to happy
你那样写肯定不行，老外看不明白，你再有理别人看不明白也不行啊。
以上是我的第一篇augument,评评吧。 同意，关键是function那里出了点问题。要是angei在就好了……
zt你的小错误要注意啊，不是第一次，不管怎么样，warranted和unwarranted可不能写错的，更不能写反了。
如果grill的看法是避开这个问题，干脆按照想当然（不是贬义）来写，也不好说。这个问题的定论，恐怕要等对机井进行调查，找出发argu142的网友，然后追踪他们的成绩之后，才能有初步结论。而且就算这样也很难说，sigh
试着提供一个思路吧，我其实也绕进去了。high in iron在不同场合是不一样的。red meat的high是和其他食物比较，而单纯的high in iron是和生理需求比较，两个完全不一样，所以不排除偷换概念的可能。不过不知道能不能用上。
大家都想想，一起解决这个问题。
另外，最后一句话ETS并没有出错，而且我觉得你未必需要否认高铁和心脏病之间的关系！ to grill
你的argument我觉得说理感觉并不太convincing，有点生硬，不过能改过来。
考虑一下你的句子语气的使用，可以回去看看范文里边，找找那种很舒服的感觉。除了一味强调no evidence no data，我觉得还有一些说不出来，需要调和的东西。怎么让你的论证易于被别人接受呢？试着想一想。
而且，要改正一些小错误。这很重要。 还是那个观点，如果题目的最后一句话因果关系换一下，即the correlation between red meat and heart disease, then, is most probably a function of the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease. 那么，你的这篇文章将是一篇出色的response.
但是，如果你不承认最后一句话有改动的需要，那么你的这篇文章就有根本的缺陷。在这个题目中，红肉引起心脏病是前提，铁引起心脏病是结论。但在你的这篇作文中，主体部分都是把结论用来支持你的论据，然后又根据这些论据来推翻结论。所以，你这篇作文通篇都犯着循环论证的错误。
主体第一段，你质疑了铁与心脏病之间关系的结论。
主体第二段，你用红肉含多少铁、人吸收多少铁等作引子，攻击红肉与心脏病之间的关系。毫无疑问，这里你用结论来否定你的前提，更要命的是，你用的这个结论在上一段刚刚被你质疑过。
主体第三段，你用其他食品也可能含铁的事实，攻击红肉与心脏病之间关系可以决定铁和心脏病之间关系。你抓住了原文的一个弱点，当然是对的。但是，你隐含的另一个推论是，如果其他食品都不含铁，只有红肉含铁，那么铁和心脏病之间的关系就可以由红肉与心脏病之间的关系来解释了。 这里，作者要解释的是铁为什么会引起心脏病，它把原因归结于红肉会引起心脏病。你从其它食品含铁的事实发起攻击，还是没有摆脱循环论证的嫌疑。当然，这不能怪你，因为原题目就设了一个循环论证的套。
其实，我也不知道如何写这篇作文，上面我写得也是有问题的，而且过于复杂。
另外，可能最近我脑子发热，想得太多，把这个原本简单的题目搞得这么复杂。如果把你们也搅进来，还望见谅！ 纠正A的逻辑错误里面的10个经典问题里包括了一种错误就是： 循环论证。用没有经过证实的观点来证明没有经过证实的观点，用英文来表达就是：circular reasoning.../ begging the q
你可以通过这个方式来反驳。 那ZHU 的文章第一个自然段我就觉得有些问题，没有说到实质问题。
你想说RED MEAT， HIGH LEVEL OF IRON 没有必要关系，那应该找证据。你绕是没有用的。
比如，RED MEAT的铁含量是很多，但是并没有达到高铁含量甚至引起心脏病的程度就是可能性之一。你还可以列出来其他的各种可能性。
另外一个兄弟说的对，你的问题是没有解释清楚你要说的问题。
休整一下再贴文章？
页:
[1]
2