Argument142 牛羊肉和心脏病 这篇写的好烂啊.热烈讨论中！

Michael7UID：57920

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查了一下，该词意为妖怪，gene 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 if/thoughwe 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-ed, 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饮用水好像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.
再看看SS的

Michael7UID：57920

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 toused to,过去是，现在不是么？ havingto have a diet with high level of what?,我明白了，呵呵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真正的原因是?,没看懂. The arguer wrongly considers the necessary condition as a sufficient condition, the conclusion is obviously unconvincing.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

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.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 Perhaps the red meat is a diet which has abundant fat and protein, in fact, which may cause heart disease. 我把它改为...protein, which, in fact, may...如何？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.

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！

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。。。

Michael7UID：57920

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.

Michael7UID：57920

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！

Michael7UID：57920

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；

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？

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

Michael7UID：57920

请教LAKE兄，这种relation我可以认为不是因果吧，而题目认为是因果，不就可以攻击了么，还不太成熟，探讨一下

Michael7UID：57920

鬼：

我觉得一个陷阱在于，相关是不是就是因果
这个可以驳斥的
就是说，承认那个well-established的相关性，但是不承认一定是因果
对不对呢？
呵呵
大家再讨论讨论

同意鬼兄的看法，well-estabished 的是一个事实的相关性，而未必是直接的必然的联系，即因果关系。
昨晚回去看了看STEWART的280，作者在B3通过他因：吃牛羊肉－－》暴食－－》肥胖－－》心脏病，来驳斥了该因果。
这是他的意见，大家可以借鉴！

Michael7UID：57920

因此要攻击的是function，不是什么因果是否成立。

to lake 攻击confusion,不就是说相关性并不等于因果关系么？
还是绕，呵呵