Argument142 非常规红肉题 by ieyangj08

ieyangj08UID: 2743219

Arugment142 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.

In this argument, the author concludes that the correlation between red meat and heart disease probably causes the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease. Admittedly, this argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it suffers from several logical flaws.

To begin with, merely based on the fact that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease occurred after the link between red meat and heart disease, the editor infers that the earlier should be responsible for the later. It is not only too hasty and cursory, but also unconvincing and dubious, for the sequence of these events, in itself, does not suffice to prove that there is a cause-effect relationship between the two. Conversely, suppose it is true, then with another well established link between lack of exercise and heart disease, we could get this link also can cause the correlation between iron levels and heart disease, which is apparently contradictory to the author’s assertion. Thus, unless the author could provide other powerful evidences to demonstrate the cause-and-effect relationship between the two, his or her hypothesis is unpersuasive.

In addition, another fact that could be used to refute the arguer’s assertion is that the ingredient of red meat that can increase the risk of heart disease is not probably iron contained in it, for there is no evidence in the argument can support it. It is totally possible that other ingredients of red meat might be blamed for raising this risk. Lipid contained in the red meat, for example, might be a cause, for we all know that it can make people fatter and fat person is easier to get heart disease. Or perhaps, zinc content of the red meat should be responsible for this rise, because eating more zinc might bring block in heart. In short, without providing solid evidences that other reasons are all irrational, the author’s declaration is dubious.

Finally, the last flaw the argument suffered is that the high levels of iron in the diet which bring an increase in heart disease may not necessarily come from red meat. Other food which also contains high levels of iron might be the true murder. Perhaps, spinach, a daily vegetable and its iron content is as high as 35 milligram per 100 gram, should be blamed to. Or perhaps, soybean, well welcomed by all ages and also contain high levels of iron, contributes a lot for these heart diseases. When the heart disease patient is a vegetarian, these possibilities are more like to be true. If either of the cases is true, the conclusion of the argument is vulnerable and easy to attack.

All in all, this argument relies on certain unwarranted reasoning and therefore specious at best. To convince readers to accept his/her conclusion, the arguer should provide information on the cause-effect relationship between the two correlations.