argument142 有拍必回

prettywraithUID: 197049

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.
WORDS: 393
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-2-22 16:51:54

In this short passage, the author justifies the assertion that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is a result of the correlation between red meat and heart disease with two reasons. The fist one is the article announcing a correlation between high levels of irons in diet and an increased risk of heart disease. Another one is the link between heart disease and red meat, which is high in iron. With improper assumptions and evidence, the conclusion is not convincing.

To begin with, the authors make an implicit assumption that the “correlation” is equal with “causation”. The assumption is unsuitable for infer the conclusion. The correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease does not mean the high iron in diet lead to heart disease, because other elements in diet may also lead to heart disease, such as high sugar and fat in foods. Moreover, there exist other possible factors leading to heart disease, such as smoking, lacking exercise, over anxious and over tired. Without eliminating these possibilities, the study does not imply the casual relationship between high iron and heart disease.

Without the implicit assumption, the author also cannot infer the conclusion that the red meat causes heart disease. Even assuming that red meat could cause heart disease, perhaps other elements in red meat cause heart disease. After all, except for iron, there are many other components in red meat, like all kinds of mineral and protein. Thus, without ruling out other reasons causing disease, it is overhasty to say the iron in red meat is the key element causing heart disease.

Even if it is that the iron in red meat leads to the heart disease, it is no evidence to demonstrate other foods in diet do not contain iron. In contrast, some vegetables, such as eggplants and spinaches, are high in iron. Thus, it is unpersuasive that the author makes use of the high iron levels in red meat support his conclusion that red meat bring out heart disease. Furthermore, the study in the article cited by the author is too vague to make people convince. After all, the author does not introduce any detail information or concrete function about how high iron in diet effect heart disease.

In short, without proper assumption and without ruling out other possible factors causing heart disease, the author is too hasty to conclude such an assertion. If the conclusion is improper and some people believe his conclusion, their disease will be delayed by the assertive conclusion. Thus, for convincing people, author should provide more evidence and detailed information to support his conclusion.

plukaUID: 2721764

In this short passage, the author justifies the assertion that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is a result of the correlation between red meat and heart disease with two reasons. （carp曰：后文的article是证据，不是理由。用Reason不如用evidence）The fist one is the article announcing a correlation between high levels of irons in diet and an increased risk of heart disease. Another one is the link between heart disease and red meat, which is high in iron. With improper assumptions and evidence, the conclusion is not convincing.

To begin with, the authors make an implicit assumption that the “correlation” is equal with(搭配to） “causation”. The assumption is unsuitable for infer the conclusion. The correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease does not mean the high iron in diet lead to heart disease,（这个does not显得绝对了一些，毕竟还是有可能leads to的，至少是contribute to。要突出非必然因果或者主要因果，不妨加上solely或者alone） because other elements in diet may also lead to heart disease, such as high(+level of) sugar and fat in foods. Moreover, there exist other possible factors leading to heart disease, such as smoking, lacking exercise, over anxious and over tired. Without eliminating these possibilities, the study does not（非事实性，而应该是论断性，改为cannot之类） imply the casual relationship between high iron and heart disease. （这个点找的很好！）

Without the implicit assumption,（此句突兀。这个the指代的是啥，是上文的那个implication吗？上文谈的是铁，本段谈的是肉，本来就可以看做独立的，不一定要连接起来。若想让步，就要找到确实能够让步的地方：同一逻辑线的推理。） the author also cannot infer the conclusion that the red meat causes heart disease（由于前半句显得不那么清晰，这句的意思也不是很清楚。不如把前半句改成similarly如何？）. Even assuming that red meat could cause heart disease, perhaps other elements in red meat cause heart disease（+as well（出于习惯））. After all, except for iron, there are many other components in red meat, like all kinds of mineral and protein. Thus, without ruling out other reasons causing disease, it is overhasty to say the iron in red meat is the key element causing heart disease.（黄色部分的句子是本段最让俺困惑不知所目的的地方。我的理解是，本段谈的是肉与心脏病之间没有必然因果关系，举出的理由是还有其他可能会导致心脏病。如果是这个思路，那么“其他可能”部分就应该是与肉完全无关的因素，比如运动习惯，遗传，生活环境等等。但是黄字部分列举出的确是肉内部的成分——只是与铁无关的因素，不是与肉。这样，就算能够通过黄字排除铁的关系，也没法排除肉的关系，即，没法得到你这段的最后一句话“it is overhasty to say the iron in red meat is the key element causing heart disease”。）（如果说，本段试图阐述的是肉里的铁与心脏病之间没有必然联系，那么黄字部分OK，最后一句话要更改：不是red meat，而是the iron in red meat。）

Even if it is that the iron in red meat leads to the heart disease, it is no evidence to demonstrate other foods in diet do not contain iron（意思明白了，也可以再挑明些）. In contrast（不清楚此短语在这里是否合适）, some vegetables, such as eggplants and spinaches, are high in iron.（可以再点清楚些，比如指出“按作者所言，这些蔬菜也会加剧心脏病危险”） Thus, it is unpersuasive that the author makes use of the high iron levels in red meat （+to)support his conclusion that red meat bring out heart disease. Furthermore, the study in the article cited by the author is too vague to make people convince. After all, the author does not introduce any detail information or concrete function about how high iron in diet effect heart disease.（这个论点如果能发展一两句就更好）

In short, without proper assumption and without ruling out other possible factors causing heart disease, the author is too hasty to conclude such an assertion. If the conclusion is improper and some people believe his conclusion, their disease will be delayed by the assertive conclusion. Thus, for convincing people, author should provide more evidence and detailed information to support his conclusion.
全文主要的模糊点在B2，已经标出。这题是传统难题了。个人以为难点就在于其原本的逻辑就该是两条线，被题目作者硬是接成一条，不伦不类。在攻击的时候，也可以考虑首先分别攻击两条线：1铁和心脏病，2肉和心脏病。随后再攻击连接点，比如3肉里面惹毛病的不一定是铁，4铁惹毛病不一定通过肉。B3实现了4。B2似乎想把2和3结合起来，但反而显得模糊了。


以上~