Argument142 牛羊肉和心脏病 这篇写的好烂啊.热烈讨论中！

CHERRYlbyUID：170649

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. 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.

CHERRYlbyUID：170649

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）我觉得再有一句比较好，一句话太少了

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 not 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.这里写的的确不清楚，再整理一下句子 Or perhaps red meat is only an external phenomenon and the true cause is something which the sick also like再具体啊，这样太笼统了. 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 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 同上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.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？

CHERRYlbyUID：170649

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．

CHERRYlbyUID：170649

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一大串的定语从句让人晕哦.

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 the 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这种表达好象不好 causal relationship但这个很好. 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 for heart diseases. 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 plays 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.有意思的观点 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.我觉得你对逻辑错误的把握比我准确，向你学习

CHERRYlbyUID：170649

谢谢提醒！！！

CHERRYlbyUID：170649

好热闹啊!!
谢谢大家!!!
To:鬼谷子
多谢对我的关心帮助！考完了还给我改，好感动．：）

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

说实话我觉得这道题要是没有清晰的逻辑思维是非常容易绕进去的，第３段我自己已经有点不知道在写什么了．你的意见我收了！

我觉得一个陷阱在于，相关是不是就是因果
这里应该可以是一个攻击点．

To: lakeqian
多谢你的补充资料，你真是个认真的人．：）不像我不求甚解．
向你学习．
这个可以去看看，挺有用的．
,http://211.151.90.54/bbs/showthread...threadid=138506

CHERRYlbyUID：170649

这次行不?
http://211.151.90.54/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138506