[风雨与共] 第五周 Argument习作 Argument 142 by【7】

shawn_pysUID: 2770388

Argument 142.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.

我准备就靠Argu了，大家狠点儿拍啊~

WORDS: 462          TIME: 01:30:00          DATE: 2011/1/19 19:19:28
In this article, the author drew a conclusion 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. To support his/her argument,【这个地方不知道存不存在前后主语不一致的问题？】 evidences were given that a recent study found a correlation between high levels of iron in diet and heart disease. And, based on a well-established link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease, and red meat is rich of iron, the author inferred that the high iron levels are most probably caused by large amounts of meat. I found there are some critical flaws in the deduction.

First of all, the author's deduction was based on vague information about the link between red meat and heart disease, as well as the data about how much iron the red meat contains. Maybe there is only a little link established between red meat in the diet and heart disease. Or even the link is opposite; we have no information about the question what the relation exactly is between the red meat and heart disease. And whether the level of iron in meat is high enough to cause the rising of heart disease? These vague data have deeply undermined the author's theory.

Although the red meat will contribute to the increase of the risk of heart disease, the author wrongly inferred that such a link is caused by the high level of iron contained in red meat. The iron contained in the meat might be very hard to be assimilated by human's body. Thus, even a person takes large amounts of red meats; the level of iron absorbed through the meat is very little. Without ruling out the possibilities that other elements rich in the red meat may cause the rising of risk of heart disease, the author can't definitely draw the conclusion that the iron contained in red meat is the reason of the link.

Finally, the article unconvincingly assumed that in the study, the increased risk of heart disease is caused only by the high levels of iron. There is only a correlation between them, and it is likely caused by many integrant in the diet. Besides, we gained little information about how much the iron in one's diet contributes to his/her heart disease. This is to say, the increase of risk caused by iron might be rather smaller than other elements in one’s diet.

To sum up, the article has many crucial flaws in proving the conclusion. To make the author's conclusion more convincing, his could provide more information about the study and the iron level in the meat. In addition, he should prove that the iron in red meat is the criminal of the heart disease.

部落联盟fiveUID: 2602690

n this article, the author drew a conclusion 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. To support his/her argument, evidences were given that a recent study found a correlation between high levels of iron in diet and heart disease. And  [可以用别的连接词啊，偶不知道and可不可以单独作为连接词啊，我觉得用furthermore/plus都可以]  , based on a well-established link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease, and red meat is rich of iron, the author inferred that the high iron levels are most probably caused by large amounts of meat  【arguer’s deduction 应该是红肉和心脏病的关联很可能是含铁量高和心脏病的关联造成的】 . I found there are some critical flaws in the deduction.

First of all, the author's deduction was based on vague information about the link between red meat and heart disease, as well as the data about how much iron the red meat contains【这个是absent 的消息，而不是vague，我觉得vague是由the absent of several vital information所引起的】. Maybe there is only a little link established between red meat in the diet and heart disease. Or even the link is opposite【这段论述很无力，要么就具体的给出可能的情况，这样的论述就好像作者的喃喃自语一样】; we have no information about the question what the relation exactly is between the red meat and heart disease. And whether the level of iron in meat is high enough to cause the rising of heart disease? These vague data have deeply undermined the author's theory.【

Although the red meat will contribute to the increase of the risk of heart disease, the author wrongly inferred that such a link is caused by the high level of iron contained in red meat. The iron contained in the meat might be very hard to be assimilated by human's body. Thus, even a person takes large amounts of red meats; the level of iron absorbed through the meat is very little. 【这句的作用和上句论述句的关系不强，上句表示的是高含铁也不会导致心脏病，所以下一句用“作者最好消除我所说的这种可能性”这样的话来承接会比较好】【而这句实际所说的情况完全可以另外起一个point,详细的论述一下】Without ruling out the possibilities that other elements rich in the red meat may cause the rising of risk of heart disease, the author can't definitely draw the conclusion that the iron contained in red meat is the reason of the link.

Finally, the article unconvincingly assumed that in the study, the increased risk of heart disease is caused only by the high levels of iron. There is only a correlation between them, and it is likely caused by many integrant in the diet. Besides, we gained little information about how much the iron in one's diet contributes to his/her heart disease【和上文中有重复】. This is to say, the increase of risk caused by iron might be rather smaller than other elements in one’s diet.

To sum up, the article has many crucial flaws in proving the conclusion. To make the author's conclusion more convincing, his could provide more information about the study and the iron level in the meat. In addition, he should prove that the iron in red meat is the criminal of the heart disease.

千寻觉得一粟童鞋这篇文有个很严重的问题，就是用来反驳的论述太少了，其实想不出具体的论述的时候，你就说他没有提供研究对象的具体信息，大小，代表性什么的，这样文章也会丰满一点。不过貌似一栗是限时写的吧，可能写的还不是很习惯。多谢谢估计就会好了，也许我们现在也可以练练限时写段落。

shawn_pysUID: 2770388

谢谢，谢谢，多谢，多谢，非常感谢~非常感谢~（都是真心地），前几天忘了来看……
我对你提到的这些还是有很多疑问。

【1】

【arguer’s deduction 应该是红肉和心脏病的关联很可能是含铁量高和心脏病的关联造成的】

作者原文是"the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, then, is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease."这句话我其实没读懂，不过我感觉核心在于"a function of"，字典解释是：“If you say that one thing is a function of another, you mean that its amount or nature depends on the other thing. ”，所以我的理解是，作者是说：高铁离子含量跟心脏病的关系取决于红肉在饮食中的含量跟心脏病的关系。这样理解对吗？

【2】

First of all, the author's deduction was based on vague information about the link between red meat and heart disease, as well as the data about how much iron the red meat contains【这个是absent 的消息，而不是vague，我觉得vague是由the absent of several vital information所引起的】.

你说absent指的是关于link的信息吗？还是前后两个都是？还有这个absent跟vague，我总是感觉absent是vague的一种……

【3】

【这段论述很无力，要么就具体的给出可能的情况，这样的论述就好像作者的喃喃自语一样】

这句话没怎么看懂，你能详细跟我讲讲吗？我也知道我存在这个问题，不过我总是感觉反驳成这样已经够了，你能说说应该加点什么吗？

【4】

Although the red meat will contribute to the increase of the risk of heart disease, the author wrongly inferred that such a link is caused by the high level of iron contained in red meat. The iron contained in the meat might be very hard to be assimilated by human's body. Thus, even a person takes large amounts of red meats; the level of iron absorbed through the meat is very little. 【这句的作用和上句论述句的关系不强，上句表示的是高含铁也不会导致心脏病，所以下一句用“作者最好消除我所说的这种可能性”这样的话来承接会比较好】【而这句实际所说的情况完全可以另外起一个point,详细的论述一下】

首先，这里我的认为是饮食中的铁含量跟饮食中的肉的铁含量是不同的（是不是这一点应该写出来？），因为肉中的铁可能很难被人体吸收，所以如果饮食中的铁全部来自红肉的话，跟来自其他食物的情况相比，会有很大差距（是不是这一点也该写出来？……），进而，我认为红肉对心脏病的影响，并不是由于其中的铁离子造成的，跟饮食中的铁含量对心脏病的影响完全是两回事，之间没有联系（好像这点也没写出来……）【所以对于你说的这个{这句的作用和上句论述句的关系不强，上句表示的是高含铁也不会导致心脏病，所以下一句用“作者最好消除我所说的这种可能性”这样的话来承接会比较好。而这句实际所说的情况完全可以另外起一个point,详细的论述一下。}我感觉你有点误解，我感觉吧，关系还是挺强的吧？你说的高含铁不准确，因为要区别是含在哪里面，所以说你后面的建议貌似我无法接受】

【4】

Besides, we gained little information about how much the iron in one's diet contributes to his/her heart disease【和上文中有重复】

你说的这个重复我没发现啊，在哪里你详细指出来好吗？

谢谢你的意见，有很大用处，虽然好像你跟我的理解有很大出入好像，不过这就表示我的文章还不能让人完全理解我的意思，有很多东西没写出来，比如“饮食中的铁含量”跟“饮食中的肉中的铁含量”是不同的我就没写出来，我以为这个很明显，但其实还是应该写出来。希望你能帮我解决一下上面的疑惑的地方

部落联盟fiveUID: 2602690

【1】

【arguer’s deduction 应该是红肉和心脏病的关联很可能是含铁量高和心脏病的关联造成的】

作者原文是"thecorrelation between high iron levels and heart disease, then, is most probablya function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease."这句话我其实没读懂，不过我感觉核心在于"a functionof"，字典解释是：“If you say thatone thing is a function of another, you mean that its amount or nature dependson the other thing. ”，所以我的理解是，作者是说：高铁离子含量跟心脏病的关系取决于红肉在饮食中的含量跟心脏病的关系。这样理解对吗？
我的理解是

A:吃红肉和心脏病的发生有关系，

B:高铁饮食和和心脏病的发生有关系

A 的主要原因就是B=B导致了A=B在A的发生中起主要作用
【2】

First of all, the author's deduction was based on vagueinformation about the link between red meat and heart disease, as well as thedata about how much iron the red meat contains【这个是absent 的消息，而不是vague，我觉得vague是由the absent of several vital information所引起的】.

你说absent指的是关于link的信息吗？还是前后两个都是？还有这个absent跟vague，我总是感觉absent是vague的一种……
以下纯属个人理解：

Vague：　说了A，而B导致Ａ
而实际上B讲的不清不楚不三不四

Absent：　说了A………（没了）
就是一个assertion,完全没有支持的观点

而肉含多少铁是完全没有讲的，是你给出的一个他的缺失的信息，因为他只说了Ａ：他们有关系

吃红肉和心脏病的发生有关系也是Ａ，他只说有关系，没有给出具体的ｅｖｉｄｅｎｃｅ去支持这个观点

【3】

【这段论述很无力，要么就具体的给出可能的情况，这样的论述就好像作者的喃喃自语一样】

这句话没怎么看懂，你能详细跟我讲讲吗？我也知道我存在这个问题，不过我总是感觉反驳成这样已经够了，你能说说应该加点什么吗？
例：Maybe there is only a little link established between red meatin the diet and heart disease. Or even the link is opposite

这句话是一种中文的思考方式，我觉得是用模糊不清的论述去反驳模糊不清的错误，既然作者没有说清楚之间的关系，我们可以这样的论述：他的论述是荒谬的＋正确的论述需要什么＋他的论述缺少需要的东西＋因此这样的论述将会导致怎么的错误。具体的将就是：他说高铁饮食和和心脏病的发生有关系这个论述是不充分的，令人信服的论述应该提供判断高铁的标准和范围，以及导致心脏病的机理，以及相关的用数据来显示的关系，他的论述没有这些东西，所以可能存在这这样的可能性：非常高的铁含量才会导致心脏病而且局限在某些特定的食物以及烹饪方式中……，因此众多信息的缺少导致这是个不可靠的论述。
【4】

Although the red meat will contribute to the increase ofthe risk of heart disease, the author wrongly inferred that such a link iscaused by the high level of iron contained in red meat. The iron contained inthe meat might be very hard to be assimilated by human's body. Thus, even aperson takes large amounts of red meats; the level of iron absorbed through themeat is very little. 【这句的作用和上句论述句的关系不强，上句表示的是高含铁也不会导致心脏病，所以下一句用“作者最好消除我所说的这种可能性”这样的话来承接会比较好】【而这句实际所说的情况完全可以另外起一个point,详细的论述一下】

首先，这里我的认为是饮食中的铁含量跟饮食中的肉的铁含量是不同的（是不是这一点应该写出来？），因为肉中的铁可能很难被人体吸收，所以如果饮食中的铁全部来自红肉的话，跟来自其他食物的情况相比，会有很大差距（是不是这一点也该写出来？……），进而，我认为红肉对心脏病的影响，并不是由于其中的铁离子造成的，跟饮食中的铁含量对心脏病的影响完全是两回事，之间没有联系（好像这点也没写出来……）【所以对于你说的这个{这句的作用和上句论述句的关系不强，上句表示的是高含铁也不会导致心脏病，所以下一句用“作者最好消除我所说的这种可能性”这样的话来承接会比较好。而这句实际所说的情况完全可以另外起一个point,详细的论述一下。}我感觉你有点误解，我感觉吧，关系还是挺强的吧？你说的高含铁不准确，因为要区别是含在哪里面，所以说你后面的建议貌似我无法接受】
嘿，不好意思啊，我应该更清楚的标示我的观点的，我说的关系不强是“你的论述”和“Without ruling out the possibilitiesthat other elements……”这句话的关系，是本段前半部分和后半部分其实可以分成两三点来讲，具体就是你的“首先……没写出来”那段的内容，前半段写而定挺详细的，但是进入后半段的时候省略了很多的“心语”，就是你用来推出你的结论的前提，但是你如果不写出来的话，就是犯了和作者一样的错误呢
【4】

Besides, we gained little information about how much theiron in one's diet contributes to his/her heart disease【和上文中有重复】

你说的这个重复我没发现啊，在哪里你详细指出来好吗？
Firstof all, the author's deduction was based on vague information about the linkbetween red meat and heart disease, as well as the data about how much iron thered meat contains这句讲的是肉含铁多少会和心脏病有关系捏【Ａ】，和饮食含铁多少会和心脏病有关系【Ｂ】Ａ和Ｂ的确有一点的差别，如果要两个都论述的话，可以放在一段中，不然判官会觉得你找的一种错误分成两部分讲来赞字数。
以上都是我个人的观点，我觉得我们这样解决问题很好，我应该更详细的解释我的看法的，不然我的观点也属于信息缺失型的错误，嘿

部落联盟fiveUID: 2602690

推荐看一下这篇文还有里面的第一篇习作
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-714914-1-1.html我昨天看了之后感触非常多

shawn_pysUID: 2770388

4# 部落联盟five
千寻，太感谢了，学到好多东西~

部落联盟fiveUID: 2602690

6# shawn_pys 都是些个人的看法，你不要嫌弃的研判的看着就好