Argument142 牛羊肉和心脏病 这篇写的好烂啊.热烈讨论中！

cssUID: 173612

to Michael7，新鲜的那个原因不是牵强，是有点儿专业

鬼谷子UID: 159645

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.开头不算太罗嗦，可还是有很多模板的痕迹。

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. 有点问题，我觉得应该是给出例子数据来保证样品随机和人员专业。Also, the reason of heart disease is various, maybe the heart diseases were mostly likely to be caused by the genie passed by the parents,（were inherited from their parents) or some sudden stroke or movements. (外伤也可能的，呵呵）So it would （be？）hasty to conclude such a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease.

Second, even we 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, （should be consider好点？）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. 我想这里这样说会不会好一点，说肉不是唯一原因，可能心脏病是由XX,XX和,XX引起的，如何？Without such considering（consideration？）, 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 was with a high level of iron. 又去质疑study了，好不好呢？Only when much （more？）detailed information about whether an eating diet really determines the heart disease provided would the argument sounds more reasonable.这段的开头和结尾似乎不是说一回事啊，开头的意思我理解是，虽然红肉和心脏病有关系，但是高铁不一定跟心脏病有关系，那么是不是应该说，可能是其他存在于肉中的物质导致的呢。可是你后面似乎在说水和调查的问题，最后又说饮食习惯，有点不一致啊

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.

总体上不错的，只是B3似乎有点问题
加油啊！

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

bluelegend66UID: 161638

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.模板的痕迹。我也还没找到简短的

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. 有点问题，我觉得应该是给出例子数据来保证样品随机和人员专业随即性不够~~其他的人数`~范围~~年龄。Also, the reason of heart disease is various, maybe the heart diseases were mostly likely to be caused by the genie passed by the parents,（were inherited from their parents) or some sudden stroke or movements.高笑所~~哈哈 So it would hasty to conclude such a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease.这句有点口语味道

Second, even we 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 considerED, 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. 肥胖`胆固醇~~先天的~~~Without such considering（possibilities）, 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 was with a high level of iron. Only when much （more？）detailed information about whether an eating diet really determines the heart disease provided would the argument sounds more reasonable.事实上是重复了B1的另一种可能

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

lakeqianUID: 157560

重申：
well-established 似乎不用攻击
参考
http://211.151.90.54/bbs/showthr ... ht=well+established
的讨论：
这一篇有前辈分析过，转贴一下
2004爱让我舍得为你放弃(GRE作文全攻略)
...................................................
析题：仔细读过，发现这道题有点绕，很多考生曾经有过这样的困惑：“我没有理解最
后一句话的意思 is most probably a function of the correlation between red
meat and heart disease.是说 high iron level 于 heart disease之间的关系 是
red meat 与 heart disease之间有关的结果 那作者到底是认为 high iron level 和
heart disease之间有没有关系阿？” 再读之下，我们会发现作者其实做了一个顺接推
论：red meat引起心脏病------------> red meat 里面还有大量的铁 --------------
----> 高铁引起心脏病，就是这么一个简单的推论过程，关键认清谁推出谁，就要在审
题时注意到关键的这么看似不经意却被友好的ETS“重复两次”的短语“well
established”，也就是说“大量红肉与心脏病之间一定有联系”是不容质疑的论据，
即本题论据是不容批驳的，关键问题在于由论据推导出结论的时候犯了“Implicit
causal claims”和“gratuitous assumptions”（详细逻辑谬误分类见后文 “七宗
罪”），因而我们就可以以次展开攻击。很多来自网上的文章和提纲在本题上颠倒了推
导对象，把“高铁引起心脏病”作为论据来推出“red meat引起心脏病”，结果导致文
章失误。下面读者可通过以下范文检验一下该论证过程和思路：
（范文）
The correlation of the high irons level and heart disease the arguer trying
to prove is not as perfect as he assumes. Although at first glance, his
cause-and-effect analysis seems quite cogent, yet it can't stand much
reexamination.

I agree to the well-established theory concerning the necessary relation
between the large amount of red meat in people's diet and heart disease,
but no other possibilities can be ruled out except for one of the
ingredients-iron. It is obvious that the arguer constructs his building of
conclusion on the basis of the conviction of the deleterious function stems
from the iron. While not only a single iron does red meat contain, as we
all know, many other components also have the influential role once being
indigested into human body. For instance, some type of particular protein
it might include, instead of the iron, is the substantial root of heart
attack. So the arguer's peroration has no convincing power for this
gratuitous assumption.

Moreover, even though his deduction does really derive from some passage of
authoritative researches he has no opportunity to list below, the assertion
about the high levels of iron related to the possibility of heart disease
cannot be got through by merely so qualified the evidence exhibited here.
According to the arguer's elicitation, we believe the red meat does contain
large amount of iron, however, we might ask ourselves such questions
enlightened by our common sense, "Does the amount of iron involved in red
meat reach the dangerous level enough to lead to heart disease?" The answer
we can't obtain through this short argument, thus directly make us doubt
the whole fruits the arguer attained.

As it stands, the study reported on the published media Eating for Health
is inevitable filled with some lethal logic fallacies, which finally
weakens the cogency of the whole claims. To such a paramount and sensitive
issue relative to people's health and life, scrutiny is not allowed to be
neglected; and it is just for this point, I'm afraid, no people could
ultimately abjure for eating red meat as a result of reading this
ridiculous article. (352 words)
.......................................

鬼兄，你觉得呢？？

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

lakeqianUID: 157560

嗯。是啊。有这种说法而已。想听听大家意见。（imong能给个意见吗？？）

鬼谷子UID: 159645

恩，我开始也没注意到well-established
我觉得两次出现一定说明问题，就是说原文把这个关系当作是客观事实来用的
而对于客观事实我觉得不应该驳斥的，那么就应该重点讨论红肉引起心脏病是否等于高铁引起心脏病，我的想法是他因引起，比如红肉中其他的成分，或者饮食中其他的成分，或者干脆就不是饮食，还有study的可靠性。尤其应该明确 red meat引起心脏病------------> red meat 里面还有大量的铁 ------------------> 高铁引起心脏病  的关系，确立正确的靶子。

看似简单的题目，原来这么绕啊
还是lakeqian细心，呵呵

lakeqianUID: 157560

我觉得两次出现一定说明问题，就是说原文把这个关系当作是客观事实来用的
嗯，似乎有蹊跷哦。不知这道题有没有范文或例文呢？？？？

鬼谷子UID: 159645

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

justinhjbUID: 171008

The author’s hasty conclusion is based on a suspect study between high levels of iron in the diet and the heart disease. I find it specious on several grounds.

To begin with, for a study to be reliable, it must be presented in detail. In the study above, however, the author provides nothing about the population and background of the study’s respondents. Is the study’s sample sufficient enough to be representative to the overall population of heart-disease victims? For example, are the study’s respondents old people? Is the study limited to a certain city or geographic region? Maybe most of the study’s respondents happen to be a group of heart-disease victims who prefer a diet of high iron level. Factors such as these could also explain the study’s result and undermine the author’s conclusion that there is a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease.

Even if we accept the study’s result, the argument remains questionable. The author has purposely hint that red meat is high in iron, but this does not necessarily mean that it is the high iron levels in red meat result in the well established link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease. Perhaps the red meat is also high in other microelement, such as zinc, calcium and the like, which may also have the similar correlation between an increased risk of heart disease. Thus it is entirely possible that it is other elements contained in the red meat that cause the heart disease, but not iron.

Finally, even if it is the high iron levels in red meat that lead to the link between red meat and heart disease, we cannot conclude that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease. Perhaps high iron level in other foods will cause the heart disease by the totally different way as it does while it is contained in the red meat. For example, perhaps a particular element X in red meat together with iron cause the heart disease and another particular element Y in other foods together with iron cause the heart disease. If this case is true, we can say the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is totally different of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.

In sum, all the above factors must be strictly gone though before the final conclusion. The author fails to do that.

lakeqianUID: 157560

网络有点问题。刚才写了不少没发出去。
大意是：silentwing也错了。注意：本题根本没有推导原因：通篇都在谈CORRELATION没有得出病因！
原题的逻辑是：study说明铁与病有关（可以无奈的做个庸俗攻击）；well established的理论说明肉和病有关，且肉里铁多。得出：肉与病的关系铁与病的关系。关键证伪这个“-->”
由于两个论据实际上只是描述现象（关系）因此没的攻击，只有结论可攻击。

可能大家据这个可能性：可能肉里有其他致病物导致心脏病。
但其实这点似乎不能攻击。因为这个攻击点不能否认结论的逻辑：a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease是错的。因为即使我们证明铁不是病因，但相关关系仍然是成立的，攻击无效。

CHERRYlbyUID: 170649

好热闹啊!!
谢谢大家!!!
To:鬼谷子
多谢对我的关心帮助！考完了还给我改，好感动．：）

这段的开头和结尾似乎不是说一回事啊，开头的意思我理解是，虽然红肉和心脏病有关系，但是高铁不一定跟心脏病有关系，那么是不是应该说，可能是其他存在于肉中的物质导致的呢。可是你后面似乎在说水和调查的问题，最后又说饮食习惯，有点不一致啊

说实话我觉得这道题要是没有清晰的逻辑思维是非常容易绕进去的，第３段我自己已经有点不知道在写什么了．你的意见我收了！

我觉得一个陷阱在于，相关是不是就是因果
这里应该可以是一个攻击点．

To: lakeqian
多谢你的补充资料，你真是个认真的人．：）不像我不求甚解．
向你学习．
这个可以去看看，挺有用的．
,http://211.151.90.54/bbs/showthread...threadid=138506

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！

lakeqianUID: 157560

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
....................
注意：“本题根本没有推导原因”：通篇都在谈CORRELATION，没有得出病因。因此要攻击的是function，不是什么因果是否成立。

to CHERRYlby
那个联接用不了啊。