Argument142 牛羊肉和心脏病 这篇写的好烂啊. :( 狠拍吧.
Argument142: 347 words 30 minutesThe 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. It seems to be reasonable. However, after careful examination, the argument is based on several unconvincing facts.
First, 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, 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, perhaps red meat may not be the main cause of the diseases. There are many other things high in iron, such as fruit and vegetables. Without such considering, the arguer's conclusion of the correlation is open to doubt.
Third, 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 would the argument sounds more reasonable.
In conclusion, the argument was poorly supported as it stands. To be more reliable and convincing, the arguer should taken more condition into account and provide more detailed information. 呵呵，我也是！
先占个位
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. It seems to be reasonable. However, after careful examination, the argument is based on several unconvincing facts.（好多了）
First, the study in the article entitled 'Eating Iron' in last month's issue of Eating for Health (EFH) （是不是有点儿没有的介绍文字？）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（这种说法我还第一次见，我觉得权威不权威不是重点，重要的是谁能用事实说话）. Also, the reason of heart disease is various,（不错） 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, 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, perhaps red meat may not be the main cause of the diseases.（还在讲他因，和上端一样啊） There are many other things high in iron,（从这句来看原因不一样了，但刚才那句话有迷惑性:o） such as fruit and vegetables. Without such considering, the arguer's conclusion of the correlation is open to doubt.
Third, 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（和上端又一样了:p）, although red meat contains a lot of iron, Perhaps the study was taken in an area which the eating water（饮用水？我更愿用drinking water） was with a high level of iron. Only when much detailed information about whether an eating diet really determines the heart disease provided would the argument sounds more reasonable.
In conclusion, the argument was poorly supported as it stands. To be more reliable and convincing, the arguer should taken more condition into account and provide more detailed information.
还是你说的对，先别急写，
写的没条理，不如少写几段
我的这片也很差呢！互相切磋！
看了我的大家就更有自信了！
Argument142 第14篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户 共用时间：30分2秒 379 words
从2004年7月22日16时50分到2004年7月22日17时30分
------题目------
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.
------正文------
The argument is flowed in several points since the arguer fails to provide reasonable analysis and draw the conclusion hastily.（是不是太简单了）
First, there is no sign to show that the report published by the Eating for Health is reliable enough to be as a established assumption in order to reason the analysis below. Perhaps the people surveyed in that article cannot represent all the people with heart disease. Or it is entirely possible that the surveyed people happen to have high levels of iron in the diet or even people in that area all used to having a diet with high level but the people with heart disease are only a small part of all the people in that area. Unless the arguer rules out these possibilities, none of the conclusions can be drawn.
Second, even if the survey is reliable, we can still be convinced in that there is no evidence showed that the red meat is the main cause of heart disease. The mere fact that there is a link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heat disease can only substantiate such a conclusion, that heart disease sufferers often eat red meat. Perhaps just because the heart disease sufferer like red meat and then the survey may shows like that. Or perhaps red meat is only an external phenomenon and the true cause is something which the sick also like. The arguer wrongly considers the necessary condition as a sufficient condition, the conclusion is obviously unconvincing.
Third, granted that red meat may cause heart disease, but it does not mean that a diet high in iron cause heart disease so that iron may cause heart disease. There is no necessary relationship between iron and heart disease. Perhaps the red meat is a diet which has abundant fat and protein, in fact, which may cause heart disease. Or it is entirely possible that the iron in red meat can be even ineffective such as broken up or chemically combined with other chemicals in red meat. If these cases are true, the arguer's conclusion that the necessary relationship between heart disease and high iron is untenable.
To sum, the final conclusion drawn by the arguer is hasty and uncertain. To support the conclusion, the arguer should provide more information to prove the survey is reliable and more comparison experiment data to show what the cause of heart disease really is. The argument is flowed in several points since the arguer fails to provide reasonable analysis and draw the conclusion hastily.（是不是太简单了）[color=#0060FF]我觉得再有一句比较好，一句话太少了[/color]
First, there is no sign to show that the report published by the Eating for Health is reliable enough to be as a established assumption in order to reason the analysis below. Perhaps the people surveyed in that article cannot represent all the people with heart disease. Or it is entirely possible that the surveyed people happen to have high levels of iron in the diet or even people in that area all used to having a diet with high level but the people with heart disease are only a small part of all the people in that area. Unless the arguer rules out these possibilities, none of the conclusions can be drawn.
Second, even if the survey is reliable, we can [color=#0060FF]not[/color] be convinced in that there is no evidence showed that the red meat is the main cause of heart disease. The mere fact that there is a link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heat disease can only substantiate such a conclusion, that heart disease sufferers often eat red meat. Perhaps just because the heart disease sufferer like red meat and then the survey may shows like that.[color=#0060FF]这里写的的确不清楚，再整理一下句子[/color] Or perhaps red meat is only an external phenomenon and the true cause is something which the sick also like[color=#0060FF]再具体啊，这样太笼统了[/color]. The arguer wrongly considers the necessary condition as a sufficient condition, the conclusion is obviously unconvincing.
Third, granted that red meat may cause heart disease, but it does not mean that a diet high in iron cause heart disease so that iron may cause heart disease. There is no这里语气不要这么肯定，最好加would[/color] necessary relationship between iron and heart disease. Perhaps the red meat is a diet which has abundant fat and protein, in fact, which may cause heart disease. Or it is entirely possible that the iron in red meat can be even ineffective such as broken up or chemically combined with other chemicals in red meat. If these cases are [color=#0060FF]同上[/color]true, the arguer's conclusion that the necessary relationship between heart disease and high iron is untenable.
To sum, the final conclusion drawn by the arguer is hasty and uncertain. To support the conclusion, the arguer should provide more information to prove the survey is reliable and more comparison experiment data to show what the cause of heart disease really is.[color=#0060FF]结尾可以，看来这个题目是很恶心的，容易把人绕进去。对了，A有的好象不大适用层层递进的论证方法，并列的论证要注意什么呢？[/color] 看来这个题目是很恶心的，容易把人绕进去。对了，A有的好象不大适用层层递进的论证方法，并列的论证要注意什么呢？
要搞清原文的原因，推导，结论，不管并列还是递进，都可以了！
bluelegend的这片不错，虽然少，但很精当！
谢谢批改！ me too!
这篇的确绕人，之前题目我就看了好几遍，还是@－@
先看看CHERRY的，还不错，论述比较有层次的。还有进一步展开的余地，估计还没有用模板吧，可以整理了，加油。
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. It seems to be reasonable. However, after careful examination, the argument is based on several unconvincing facts.
First, 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[color=blue]查了一下，该词意为妖怪，gene[/color] 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, even [color=blue]if/though[/color]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[color=blue]-ed[/color], perhaps red meat may not be the main cause of the diseases. There are many other things high in iron, such as fruit and vegetables. Without such considering, the arguer's conclusion of the correlation is open to doubt.
Third, 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[color=blue]饮用水好像drinking water[/color] was with a high level of iron. Only when much detailed information about whether an eating diet really determines the heart disease provided would the argument sounds more reasonable.
In conclusion, the argument was poorly supported as it stands. To be more reliable and convincing, the arguer should taken more condition into account and provide more detailed information.
再看看SS的 ss的总体来说是不错的，脉络比较清晰。个人认为可以尽快形成个人的风格，可以有时间再论述的更多一些。
The argument is flowed in several points since the arguer fails to provide reasonable analysis and draw the conclusion hastily.（是不是太简单了）
First, there is no sign to show that the report published by the Eating for Health is reliable enough to be as a established assumption in order to reason the analysis below. Perhaps the people surveyed in that article cannot represent all the people with heart disease. Or it is entirely possible that the surveyed people happen to have high levels of iron in the diet or even people in that area all used to[color=blue]used to,过去是，现在不是么？[/color] having[color=blue]to have[/color] a diet with high level [color=blue]of what?,我明白了，呵呵[/color]but the people with heart disease are only a small part of all the people in that area. Unless the arguer rules out these possibilities, none of the conclusions can be drawn.
Second, even if the survey is reliable, we can still be convinced in that there is no evidence showed that the red meat is the main cause of heart disease. The mere fact that there is a link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heat disease can only substantiate such a conclusion, that heart disease sufferers often eat red meat. Perhaps just because the heart disease sufferer like red meat and then the survey may shows like that. Or perhaps red meat is only an external phenomenon and the true cause is something which the sick also like[color=blue]真正的原因是?,没看懂[/color]. The arguer wrongly considers the necessary condition as a sufficient condition, the conclusion is obviously unconvincing.[color=blue]讨论一下，呲牛羊柚也未必是必要条件吧，可以不作这个让步[/color]
Third, granted that red meat may cause heart disease, but it does not mean that a diet high in iron cause heart disease so that iron may cause heart disease. There is no necessary relationship between iron and heart disease.[color=blue]窃以为，最好不要这么绝对，是可能没有必然联系，因为ARGU没有说[/color] Perhaps the red meat is a diet which has abundant fat and protein, in fact, which may cause heart disease. [color=blue]我把它改为...protein, which, in fact, may...如何？[/color]It is entirely possible that the iron in red meat can be even ineffective such as broken up or chemically combined with other chemicals in red meat.[color=blue]?[/color] If these cases are true, the arguer's conclusion that the necessary relationship between heart disease and high iron is untenable.
To sum, the final conclusion drawn by the arguer is hasty and uncertain. To support the conclusion, the arguer should provide more information to prove the survey is reliable and more comparison experiment data to show what the cause of heart disease really is.
[quote]对了，A有的好象不大适用层层递进的论证方法，并列的论证要注意什么呢？
要搞清原文的原因，推导，结论，不管并列还是递进，都可以了！[/quote]
我觉得递进或是让步的层次比较分明吧，并列。。。就按照轻重来呗。
下面就是洒家的了，别客气，多拍几砖，哥们我还练过。。。 The argument seems logical on the surface, while consideration will expose several logical fallacies resulting its' false conclusion which will be discussed in details below.
First of all, the argument relies on the unfounded assumption that the large amount of red meat in the diet results in the disease. The arguer does not provide the statistics in details that could show fact that the more people consume the red meat, the greater possibilities they have heart diseases, nor did give any scientific facts the prove the specific relationship between the two needless to say causal relationship. Without direct objective facts, the conclusion maybe the subjective imagination of the arguer.
Secondly, without taking into account many other reasons that result the heart diseases, the argument fails to be convincing. In common experiences, heart diseases result from many synthetic reasons, such as genetic influences, living habits, working pressure, emotional conditions, etc. It is very probable the people in the survey who regularly eat red meat are those who have a heavy burden of jobs and furthermore are very oppressive, which is the true reason of their heart diseases. While their consumption of red meat is just because of its conveniences, which is not the main reason. Also probably the few people in the survey have problematic genes relevant to heart diseases and happen to enjoy the taste of red meat. Either scenario, if true, the relationship would not lend any reliable credence to the conclusion.
Even though the red meat has some extent of relationship with the heart diseases, the conclusion that it is iron that have the most important role is hasty. The arguer fails to consider other possible substances in the red meat that result in the disease. If other food which also have iron, even a larger amount, have no relationship with the disease, the conclusion is probable wrong. Furthermore, it is very probable that the red meat eater always addictive to it and every time they eat red meat they tend to have much more than their stomach could sustain, which result the heavy burden to their body and result in the disease. Without all these and other possible, the arguer fails to convince me his conclusion.
In sum, the argument does not provide any direct relationship between the red meat and the heart disease, neither does it consider other possible reasons, which result its logical problems. Hence, the argument that iron levels in the red meat lead to heart disease is unfounded. 楼主这句话Second, even we assume that the study' is reliable, there is no proof of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.是想攻击, it is well established that there is a link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease？ 谢谢大家！
To Michael:
genie查了一下，该词意为妖怪，gene
哈哈哈，好搞笑啊，联系意思一翻，我肚子都疼了．记忆绝对深刻了．
饮用水好像drinking water
我一着急连eating water 都发明出来了．
我觉得递进或是让步的层次比较分明吧，并列。。。就按照轻重来呗。
恩，有道理．我得整理一下了，的确是．
好久没这么笑了．
谢谢你！
To lakeqian:
好象是在驳吧，我觉得我有个毛病就是总是找出一堆错误，然后就像抬杠了． Michael 的文章
The argument seems logical on the surface, while consideration will expose several logical fallacies resulting its' false conclusion which will be discussed in details below[color=#0060FF]一大串的定语从句让人晕哦[/color].
First of all, the argument relies on the unfounded assumption that the large amount of red meat in the diet results in the disease. The arguer does not provide the statistics in details that could show [color=#0060FF]the[/color] fact that the more people consume the red meat, the greater possibilities they have heart diseases, nor did give any scientific facts the prove the specific relationship between the two needless to say[color=#0060FF]这种表达好象不好[/color] causal relationship[color=#0060FF]但这个很好[/color]. Without direct objective facts, the conclusion maybe the subjective imagination of the arguer.
Secondly, without taking into account many other reasons that result the heart diseases, the argument fails to be convincing. In common experiences, heart diseases result from many synthetic reasons, such as genetic influences, living habits, working pressure, emotional conditions, etc. It is very probable the people in the survey who regularly eat red meat are those who have a heavy burden of jobs and furthermore are very oppressive, which is the true reason of their heart diseases. While their consumption of red meat is just because of its conveniences, which is not the main reason [color=#0060FF]for heart diseases[/color]. Also probably the few people in the survey have problematic genes relevant to heart diseases and happen to enjoy the taste of red meat. Either scenario, if true, the relationship would not lend any reliable credence to the conclusion.
Even though the red meat has some extent of relationship with the heart diseases, the conclusion that it is iron that have [color=#0060FF]plays[/color] the most important role is hasty. The arguer fails to consider other possible substances in the red meat that result in the disease. If other food which also have iron, even a larger amount, have no relationship with the disease, the conclusion is probable wrong. Furthermore, it is very probable that the red meat eater always addictive to it and every time they eat red meat they tend to have much more than their stomach could sustain, which result the heavy burden to their body and result in the disease.[color=#0060FF]有意思的观点[/color] Without all these and other possible, the arguer fails to convince me his conclusion.
In sum, the argument does not provide any direct relationship between the red meat and the heart disease, neither does it consider other possible reasons, which result its logical problems. Hence, the argument that iron levels in the red meat lead to heart disease is unfounded.[color=#0060FF]我觉得你对逻辑错误的把握比我准确，向你学习[/color] 谢谢CHERRY的修改，我的开头的确不怎么样，NEITHER IS LONG SENTENCE，
努力！
那个有意思的POSSIBILITY是不是有些牵强啊？
大家接着拍！ The argument seems logical on the surface, while consideration will expose several logical fallacies resulting its' false conclusion which will be discussed in details below. （哇，这么玄，没有人的参与？而且百套百灵。我也得好好整理模版了）
First of all, the argument relies on the unfounded assumption that the large amount of red meat in the diet results in the disease. The arguer does not provide the statistics in details that（换个which吧） could show fact that the more people consume the red meat, the greater possibilities they have heart diseases, nor did give any scientific facts the prove the specific relationship between the two needless to say causal relationship. Without direct objective facts, the conclusion maybe the subjective imagination of the arguer.（我也知道却事实和分析，但要写出来，什么事实可以推得结论或给出事实不足时的可能结论）
Secondly, without taking into account many other reasons that result（cause?） the heart diseases, the argument fails to be convincing. In common experiences, heart diseases result from many synthetic reasons, such as genetic influences, living habits, working pressure, emotional conditions, etc. It is very probable the people in the survey who regularly eat red meat are those who have a heavy burden of jobs and furthermore are very oppressive, which is the true reason of their heart diseases. While their consumption of red meat is just because of its conveniences, （分句的后半句呢？）which is not the main reason. Also probably the few（the few是强调多还是少?） people in the survey have problematic genes relevant to heart diseases and happen to enjoy the taste of red meat. Either scenario, if true, the relationship would not lend any reliable credence to the conclusion.（呵呵，条理居然没乱，好好向你学习）
Even though the red meat has some extent of relationship with the heart diseases, the conclusion that it is iron that have the most important role is hasty. The arguer fails to consider other possible substances in the red meat that result in the disease. If other food which also have iron, even a larger amount, have no relationship with the disease, the conclusion is probable wrong. Furthermore, it is very probable that the red meat eater always addictive to it and every time they eat red meat they tend to have much more than their stomach could sustain, which result the heavy burden to their body and result in the disease（新鲜）. Without all these and other possible, the arguer fails to convince me his conclusion.
In sum, the argument does not provide any direct relationship between the red meat and the heart disease, neither does it consider other possible reasons, which result its logical problems. Hence, the argument that iron levels in the red meat lead to heart disease is unfounded.
唔，好思路！
作者避过了牛羊肉是否有害一点，只将其左可能原因。
1 无科学根据，太笼统
2 很棒! 心脏病他因引起
3 聪明！铁与心脏病无关，他因
不过将牛羊肉有害左可能原因，是否间接承认原文观点？有循环论证之嫌？ 好象是在驳吧，我觉得我有个毛病就是总是找出一堆错误，然后就像抬杠了．
well-establish 是不用攻击的，是认可前提。imong 有个帖子讨论过似乎。可能在索引那三篇里有。 谢谢提醒！！！ to Michael7，新鲜的那个原因不是牵强，是有点儿专业 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. It seems to be reasonable. However, after careful examination, the argument is based on several unconvincing facts.[color=blue]开头不算太罗嗦，可还是有很多模板的痕迹。[/color]
First, 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. [color=blue]有点问题，我觉得应该是给出例子数据来保证样品随机和人员专业。[/color]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,[color=blue]（were inherited from their parents) [/color]or some sudden stroke or movements. ([color=blue]外伤也可能的，呵呵）[/color]So it would [color=blue]（be？）[/color]hasty to conclude such a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease.
Second, 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, [color=blue]（should be consider好点？）[/color]perhaps red meat may not be the main cause of the diseases. There are many other things high in iron, such as fruit and vegetables. [color=blue]我想这里这样说会不会好一点，说肉不是唯一原因，可能心脏病是由XX,XX和,XX引起的，如何？[/color]Without such considering[color=blue]（consideration？）[/color], the arguer's conclusion of the correlation is open to doubt.
Third, 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. [color=blue]又去质疑study了，好不好呢？[/color]Only when much [color=blue]（more？）[/color]detailed information about whether an eating diet really determines the heart disease provided would the argument sounds more reasonable.[color=blue]这段的开头和结尾似乎不是说一回事啊，开头的意思我理解是，虽然红肉和心脏病有关系，但是高铁不一定跟心脏病有关系，那么是不是应该说，可能是其他存在于肉中的物质导致的呢。可是你后面似乎在说水和调查的问题，最后又说饮食习惯，有点不一致啊[/color]
In conclusion, the argument was poorly supported as it stands. To be more reliable and convincing, the arguer should taken more condition into account and provide more detailed information.
[color=blue]总体上不错的，只是B3似乎有点问题
加油啊！
[/color] 谢谢ss修改，几处不大通顺的地方都被你指出了；
第一段，还有展开的余地；
[quote]不过将牛羊肉有害左可能原因，是否间接承认原文观点？有循环论证之嫌？[/quote]
原文说是引起心脏病嘛，我的B3作了一个让步，就算是有害，也未必是其中的铁，而可能是别的什么物质。循环论证我不太明白，麻烦你不妨说的具体一些。BOW
UP UP
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. It seems to be reasonable. However, after careful examination, the argument is based on several unconvincing facts.模板的痕迹。我也还没找到简短的First, 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. 有点问题，我觉得应该是给出例子数据来保证样品随机和人员专业随即性不够~~其他的人数`~范围~~年龄。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,（were inherited from their parents) or some sudden stroke or movements.高笑所~~哈哈[/color] So it would hasty to conclude such a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease.这句有点口语味道
Second, 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 considerED, perhaps red meat may not be the main cause of the diseases. There are many other things high in iron, such as fruit and vegetables. 肥胖`胆固醇~~先天的~~~Without such considering（possibilities）, the arguer's conclusion of the correlation is open to doubt.
Third, 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 （more？）detailed information about whether an eating diet really determines the heart disease provided would the argument sounds more reasonable.事实上是重复了B1的另一种可能
In conclusion, the argument was poorly supported as it stands. To be more reliable and convincing, the arguer should taken more condition into account and provide more detailed information 重申：
well-established 似乎不用攻击
参考
[url]http://211.151.90.54/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=176692&highlight=well+established[/url]
的讨论：
这一篇有前辈分析过，转贴一下
2004爱让我舍得为你放弃(GRE作文全攻略)
...................................................
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)
.......................................
鬼兄，你觉得呢？？
页:
[1]
2