急求互改小组啊！！！（11月30号的AW）

开奔驰的尼采UID: 2700245

下面的鄙人的两篇陋作   麻烦高手给予指点啊！！！！

万分感谢！！！！


TOPIC: ARGUMENT33 - The following report appeared in an archaeology journal.

"The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area has led archaeologists to ask how the pots were spread. Some believe the pot makers migrated to the various sites and carried the pots along with them; others believe the pots were spread by trade and their makers remained in one place. Now, analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons can settle the debate: high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood. Many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. Therefore, it must be that the pots were spread by migration, not trade."
WORDS: 314
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-11-10 11:22:09


The reporter concludes that the pots were spead by migration instead of trade on the basis of several unconvincing reasons----analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons and the distribution of certain metallic element . Careful examination of each reason, it lends little credible support to the recommendation.

To begin with, the reporter's the key evidence is the bones of preshistoric human skeletons. His assumption is that certain metallic element is found in their bones. And he assumpts that this certain metallic element enters into their bones only by foods; these people who migrated to a new place after childhood often eat those food. But, as we all know, metallic element could enter into our body by various ways----such as water. So, maybe other people drink the water which comes from the place where the pots were made.

Trade can also make these pots spread to such a wide area. Even that certain kind of metallic element indeed enters into bones by food, food could also spread by trade----there is no evidence to object the possible that the food and pots are traded together. It is entirely possible that those pots are used to contain these food. Lacking more evidence, the reporter can not draw such a fallacious conclusion.

Finally, there may be other ways to spread these pots and make them to leave their hometown---if there has ever a war, the pot makers may be used as slaves. Then it is easy to explain why many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of that certain metallic element. Many other possible which leads to this result couold also exist, such as culture communication.

To sum up, the reporter ignores other factors cause the pots spread and correlations between the pots' spread and metallic element's. Lacking such evidence, the reporter can not draw such an unconvincing conclusion.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
142The 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 concludes that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease on the basis of a recent study from a article. Close scrutiny of his unconvencing cites, we can find this argument logically flawed in several respects.

To begin with, the recent study from the article is doubtful----for there is no any statistics or experimental sample to reveal the correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. This article is just a issue of Eating for Health, but what kind of publication is Eating for Health? If it is a magzine for profit, this article is supposed to a advertise for another food which has low iron level. Therefore, the evidence itself is very doubtful so that the arguer's conclusion is unconvencing.

Even if it is true as the article said, there is no evidence to substantiate that
conclusion. How is it well established that link? Where is the experiment report? Perhaps only certain kinds of red meat are high in iron, but others are not. Such an assumption is not enough to draw a conlusion that large amounts of red meat in the diet will cause heart disease. After all, lots of factors could lead to heart disease-----such as long time hard work, not only the dieat factor. Consequently, the link between red meat and heart disease may not exist.

Finally, it is entirely possible that food which has too high iron levels indeed do harm to heart, but the majority of red meat do not make any bad influence to heart, even may be good for heart.

In sum, the conclusion relies on certain doubtful evidence that renders it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the correlation, the arguer should cite some statistics and experiment report in detail to substantiate that red meat indeed has high iron levels and high iron must cause heart disease.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————

开奔驰的尼采UID: 2700245

自己顶个·······   哪位高手搭理我下嘛······
专门翘马克思课回寝室写作文来滴 嘿嘿····

xuangeUID: 2724106

踩一下。我qq：369613878 我本月考。