标题: ARGUMENT142 by zephyrqq 红肉题，还是写一下算了 [打印本页] 作者: zephyrqq 时间: 2008-3-2 23:22:58 标题: ARGUMENT142 by zephyrqq 红肉题，还是写一下算了
ARGUMENT142 - 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.
字数：359 460 用时：00:30:00 加9分钟 日期：2008-3-2 21:15:25
Before accepting the author's conclusion that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is most possibly a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease, we should make a reflection on the reasoning process of this argument once more. The author commits some logical fallacies, so his conclusion is unconvincing.
To begin with, the author assumes that the link between large amount of red meat in diet and hear disease indicates that the high iron in red meat is responsible for the risk of heart disease. However, this assumption is unreasonable. There is a possibility that which matters is not eating red meat itself but the living habit of those who eat a large amount of red meat. It is at least possible that those people do not care about keeping a healthy diet, or their even does not take care about their health. If so, the risk of heart disease might be mainly attributed to their unhealthy living habit.
Furthermore, even assuming that it was the high iron in the red meat that contribute to the risk of heart disease, the author's conclusion rests on another presumption that the subjects in the study consumed a lot of red meat during the study. This assertion, nevertheless, is supported by no evidence. It is entirely possibly that these subjects ate no red meat at all, or they only eat a quite small amount of red meat. And it is equally possible that the researchers use other food to design a high-iron-level diet for these subjects, such as eggs, milk, iron complement and so forth. Any of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the author's implicit assumption that the researchers use red meat to supply high level iron in diet.
Finally, even if we accept that high levels if iron in the diet of the subjects during this study was offered by red meat, the author's conclusion is also unsubstantial. Possibly, the high level iron contained in red meat could not be absorbed at all. If this is exactly the case, the risk of heart disease might caused by other substances or elements in red meat. Therefore, the author's conclusion that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is most possibly a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease is unwarranted.
For all these reasons, this argument is unsubstantial as it stands. To better support it, the author should convince us that the iron contained in red meat could be easy absorbed and rule out other factors that might be responsible for the risk of heart disease. Other information showing that researchers of the study used only a large amount of red meat to design the high level of iron in the diet for the subjects.