[同主题写作] 0706G同主题写作第六期——Argument142 [复制链接]

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.

翻译：上一期的《健康饮食》杂志上刊登的题为《食铁》的文章报导说最近一项研究发现饮食中铁的含量过高与心脏病发病率增加有关联。而且，我们已经知道饮食中大量的牛羊肉和心脏病是有联系的，牛羊肉中铁的含量很高。基于以上研究和牛羊肉与心脏病之间的已知联系，我们可以得出结论，高铁含量与心脏病之间的关联最有可能是牛羊肉与心脏病之间关联的作用。

首先需要说明一点，此题之所以难是因为它没有犯一般的ARGUMENT所容易犯的错误，没有直接的错误因果也没有草率推广，而是在偷换概念。另外有关于中间的两个“论据”，a resent study和well-established，要不要攻击，算不算错误，我觉得前者可以攻击下权威性，后者就算了，两个都不是什么特别突出特别有个性的错误，也没有给出多少detail，想做到充分攻击是挺不容易的，因此这里就此略过。

我们先看题中论证部分对两个correlation的解释：

correlation1: a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease
correlation2: a link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease

在看结论中这两个变成了什么东西：

correlation1: the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease
correlation2: the correlation between red meat and heart disease

少了什么东西没有？对，“in the diet”。

有没有这个词，意思大不一样，有了，其意义表达的是一种表面现象，“在食谱中”，没有，则直接建立了逻辑联系。作个类比，戴云戴教主经常说“自从2000年，我加盟新东方之后，新东方的事业蒸蒸日上”，有教徒爱教心切，直接将此解释为“戴教主加盟新东方使新东方事业蒸蒸日上”，曲解、误导之意已然很明显了吧？其实这个我们经常写到的错误因果通常也是通过偷换概念实现的，只不过同样是将存在话换为发生作用，本题的动作要隐蔽得多。

难上加难的是，作者在偷换概念之余还玩了一个文字游戏，不写because, cause, help这些我们常见的因果联系词，用了个表意很模糊的“correlation”。什么是correlation？

[quote]
引用美国传统字典中比较精确的一条解释：

Statistics The simultaneous change in value of two numerically valued random variables:
【统计学】 相关性：两个随机交化的数值在数值上的同时交化：

the positive correlation between cigarette smoking and the incidence of lung cancer; the negative correlation between age and normal vision.
吸烟与肺癌发病的正比关系；年龄与正常视力之间的反比关系

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：
Growth is a function of nutrition.
长身体是由营养决定的

　猪肝　每100克猪肝中含铁31.1毫克，蛋白质20.8毫克。猪肝中还含有丰富的维生素A和叶酸，营养较全面。但猪肝中含有较多的胆固醇，一次不宜吃得太多。
    牛肉　每100克牛肉中含铁3.2毫克，蛋白质20.1毫克。牛肉营养价值高，并有健脾胃的作用，但牛肉纤维较粗。
    猪肉　每100克猪肉中含铁3.4毫克，蛋白质18.4毫克。
    鸡肝　每100克鸡肝中含铁13.1毫克，蛋白质16.6毫克。鸡肝富含血红素铁、锌、铜、维生素A和B族维生素等。
    猪肾　每100克猪肾中含铁5.6毫克，蛋白质16.8毫克。猪肾中富含锌、铁、铜、磷、B族维生素、维生素C、蛋白质、脂肪等，但制作时注意清洗干净。
    鸡血　每100克鸡血中含铁28.3毫克，蛋白质10.1毫克。鸡血富含铁、锌、氨基酸和维生素等多种营养元素，特别是铁和赖氨酸含量很高，且极易被人体吸收。
    大豆　每100克大豆中含铁9.4毫克，蛋白质32.9毫克。大豆营养丰富，含铁量高，但其所含的铁较动物性来源的铁吸收率要稍差一些。
    蛋黄　每100克蛋黄中含铁10.2毫克，蛋白质15.2毫克。蛋黄含有丰富的铁、锌和维生素D。

[quote]

原帖由 mckinsey 于 2007-2-28 13:31 发表
我年纪大了，智商不大够用，这个题我看得越多越糊涂

在没有看这篇同主题以前我认为的提纲是：
1. 正是因为红肉里面的什么和心脏病有关，同时红肉里含有大量的铁，所以才得出了铁和心脏病有关的study。循环论证。可能铁和心脏病一点关系都没有。
2. 也有可能喜欢吃红肉的人一般也喜欢吃另外一种东西，而这种东西会导致心脏病。
3. 肉里面含有其他的因素导致了心脏病。不光光是铁一种。

看完了同主题以后我发现我犯了一个很严重的错误

就是function的意思理解反了。我以为文章最后一句话的意思是牛羊肉于心脏病之间的关系就是因为铁于心脏病之间的关系。

那么意识到这个错误以后，我把作者的逻辑联重新整理：

研究发现：发现饮食中含铁量高心脏病风险大

我们一直知道：饮食中大量的红肉心脏病风险大
而红肉中有很多铁
因此很有可能试验中这一现象的原因是因为红肉会导致心脏病。

我感觉原作者的意思是“同志们，我觉得杂志上那篇报道是不实的；现实中的常识告诉我们肉能够导致心脏病，而肉中有多铁，所以如果他们的试验是用红肉做的的话，那么实验中铁于心脏病的联系很可能是由于红肉能够导致心脏病，而不关铁什么事”

这样的话存在着一个assumption就是试验是用红肉做的。因此在这样的基础上我觉得好多人的论述是自相矛盾的。论述红肉中含有其它元素而不是铁导致的心脏病，铁不能被吸收之类的，不就是犯了和我当初一样的错误，（虽然同志们意识到正确的意思，却依旧按照错误地进行了论证）表示支持同意了作者的观点了么？

TOPIC: 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.


Outline: 1. 质疑研究中的correlation, 由于研究的样本的可靠性没有被提及， 例如年龄，身体状况，遗传因素。（这里应该是在质疑研究本身，而不是correlation吧？样本的可靠性在这里质疑是不合适的，因为作者并没有说the article的细节，所以有可能那篇文章是提供了大量样本的，而作者只是借鉴了一个结论。我们平时写作文也喜欢说些"as xxx claims(and I paraphrase)"来引述牛人观点，问题是我们只会说这些人怎么牛"a master in xxxx""my best professor"...，而不会说这为牛人在做了大量研究和调查以后这么说。）
        2．质疑作者的假设，红肉中的高铁引起心脏病，(作者没有直接提出这个假设, 因此在这里攻击时需要对作者的思路进行推敲和提炼) 但可能有其他的因素，例如胆固醇，以及其他矿物质，钙
       3．质疑结论，the correlation between red meat and heart disease 决定了the correlation between high levels of iron and heart disease,（决定这个词用的不妥, 按我的理解, 如果不认为ets将function误用的话, 那么这两个关系的联系只能认为是"高铁导致高心脏病"这种现象是可以由"红肉导致心脏病"来进行解释和支持, 虽然也是种因为所以的关系, 但由于只是现象上, 所以不能用决定） 因为研究中的饮食中的铁可能容易吸收，相对肉中的铁（肉中的铁不被吸收，那么是什么导致心脏病？胆固醇？这样不是跟第二条一样了么），or 研究中的饮食中的铁来自肝脏，而不是肉类
（感觉你跟我理解这道题的方式不太一样, 主要集中在ETS对function这个词的解释上，细想之下你的理解也很有道理, 但相应地把题目又复杂化了, 因此会导致在论证过程中出现混乱, 特别是这个关系"决定"那个关系的理解上.）

Before claiming that the correlation between red meat and heart disease causes (causes=be the function of ? ) the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, a complete examination is needed from several perspectives. The argument assumes that only high levels of iron in red meat result in heart disease without other some possible factors, which may have impaired the credibility of it.

First of all, the reliability and representative of study mentioned by the author is open to doubt. The author does not provide any information about the sample in the study, such as the age, gender, health conditions and genetic features, and so forth. If the majority of persons in study are the older people, then it is entirely possible that their own bad physical condition cause them to more easily suffer from heart disease, not relevant to their high levels of iron in diets. Or if all of persons in study come from the same area where there is generally high incidence of heart disease in group (due to the local gene, 为什么同地区没有代表性, 需要进一步解释), it is quite likely that these participants in the study natually have a higher risk of heart disease than others at a result of certain genetic accessibility in them to heart disease. Consequently, without considering the cases, the assertion that the high-iron diet in the study leads to heart disease is unreasonable. (reliability不等于representative, 后者只是前者中的一个小部分, 与其质疑作者压根没提的representative, 不如质问下这本杂志的可靠性. 由于攻击方向的问题, 给人感觉这段就是靠幻觉在攻击作者, 不清楚作者的研究方式就假设了他靠样本研究来得出这个因果关系. )

Moreover, even if red meat indeed causes heart disease (之前并没有提到red meat causes heart disease, 何来此让步?), the assumption that the reason why eating red meat can cause heart disease is due to (reason be the high iron levels, 此处due to多余) the high iron levels in it is unwarranted. In fact, there are some possible reasons like cholesterol and calcium involved in red meat, which (may) truly results in heart disease instead of iron in it. As is known to all, meats have high levels of cholesterol. (跟前面一句话意思重复, 多余) Then it is fully likely that when eating the normal amounts of red meat, people may fully transform (transform to what? fat?) the cholesterol and thus the physical fitness cannot be damaged. On the contrary, if people eat a large amount of red meat, the function of transforming cholesterol might have gone the maximum and thus there is a great deal of cholesterol reserving in the body. (这两句对你的论述有意义么? 说明胆固醇可以导致心脏病就行了, 不用累述它的工作原理, 特别是如此分情况讨论) Eventually, this causes blood vessels of body to thicken and stimulates heart disease. Clearly, under the case, the reason why red meat results in heart disease is not due to its high iron levels.

Finally, the conclusion that the correlation observed in the study is directly relevant to the correlation between red meat and heart disease is not persuasive. Do the high levels of iron in the diet in the study come from red meat? Is the form of iron in red meat same as those in the study? Clearly, the author does not afford any information about these respects(making us can sufficiently suspect that...需要指出这种错误如何破坏作者的结论). Actually, common sense tells us that the difference with oxidized condition of iron will determine whether it can be absorbed fully. Then it is rather probable that the high levels of iron in diets in the study come from animal liver containing a kind of iron that is the easiest absorbed form, and thus the amounts of iron assimilated stimulate heart disease. However, the iron in red meat is difficult to be absorbed due to the different oxidized form. Thus, the result resting on the study is not relevant to the correlation between red meat and heart disease.(这段的论证很充分, good job)

From what has been discussed above, we can safely arrive at the conclusion that the author's contention cannot convince us unless he or she can provide more information about the group of people in study and other possible dangerous factors of red meat causing heat disease.

各段间的逻辑关系不是很明确, 对于作者观点理解的解释也不太充分, 以至于我到最后一段才看懂你论证本题的角度. 象这样的难题需要对作者的错误进行一个整体的分析, 然后再进行具体的攻击, 或者在分点攻击中把作者的出发点说清楚, 从而做到段落间的连贯联系.