argument142 [smiles-B] 第四次作业 有拍必回

dychangfengUID: 2216148

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.

assumption: there is a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased of heart disease.
evidence: the study which found a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. red meat is high in iron.
conclusion: the correlation between red meat and heart disease result in the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease.

From the a study that found a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease and an alleged right fact that a correlation between red meat and heart disease, the arguer concluded that it is the correlation between red meat and heart disease that result in the correlation between high levels of iron and heart disease. Given that red meat is high in iron, we may admit the legitimacy of the conclusion. However, we discover several flaws in the process of author's deduction after thorough consideration.

To begin with, the assumption on which the contention is based seems gratuitous. The arguer only says that it is well established that there is a link between red meat in the diet and heart disease, without any statistics and facts to validate this assertion. We even do not know where this allegation comes from; let alone what the correlation is. There is no evidence to prove that the more red meat people eat, the more possible he will have heat disease. Without any other evidence to validate this groundless declaration, we can not certainly accept the author's conclusion.

Furthermore, the study on which the conclusion depends is open to doubt. We are imposed by the result of this study, without knowing how the study was conducted and if it is representative enough to generalize to other cases. Lacking information of these aspects, we can not help to doubt the credibility of the study, not saying the conclusion.

Finally, even if the assumption and the study are out of question, there are still some other fallacies the author committed that prevent me to reach his or her conclusion. Much quantity of red meat leading to much possibility of heart disease does not mean that it is the iron in the meat exerts this function. There are so many elements and substances in red meat, how can locate the reason of heart disease before further research? What's more, the study just claims high levels of iron leads to high possibilities of heart disease, but the iron has many forms when existing in organic substance such as red meat. Before insuring the iron in the study and red meat is one form, we can not accept the conclusion.

To sum up, the evidence and assumption lend no strong evidence to the arguer's assertion. To validate his recommendation, the arguer necessitates providing more specific information about the assumption, study, and the form of the iron in red meat, or we can not confirm the conclusion’s rectitude.

留下链接，有拍必回:lol

applehattieUID: 2195344

assumption: there is a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased of heart disease.
evidence: the study which found a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. red meat is high in iron.
conclusion: the correlation between red meat and heart disease result in the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease.

From the a study(a去掉) that found a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease and an alleged right fact that a correlation between red meat and heart disease, the arguer concluded that it is the correlation between red meat and heart disease that result in the correlation between high levels of iron and heart disease. Given that red meat is high in iron, we may admit the legitimacy of the conclusion. However, we discover several flaws in the process of author's deduction after thorough consideration. （个人觉得是study发现了铁和心脏病的关系再推到红肉致病，注意文章第一句话后的further）

To begin with, the assumption on which the contention is based seems gratuitous. The arguer only says that it is well established that there is a link between red meat in the diet and heart disease, without any statistics and facts to validate this assertion. We even do not know where this allegation comes from; let alone what the correlation is. There is no evidence to prove that the more red meat people eat, the more possible he will have heat disease. Without any other evidence to validate this groundless declaration, we can not certainly accept the author's conclusion.

Furthermore, the study on which the conclusion depends is open to doubt. We are imposed by the result of this study, without knowing how the study was conducted and if it is representative enough to generalize to other cases. Lacking information of these aspects, we can not help to doubt the credibility of the study, not saying the conclusion.

Finally, even if the assumption and the study are out of question（regardless of the assumption and the study会不会好一点？）, there are still some other fallacies the author committed that prevent me to reach his or her conclusion. Much quantity of red meat leading to much possibility （很多可能性？）of heart disease does not mean that it is the iron in the meat exerts this function. There are so many elements and substances in red meat, how can locate the reason of heart disease before further research? What's more, the study just claims high levels of iron leads to high possibilities of heart disease, but the iron has many forms when existing in organic substance such as red meat. Before insuring the iron in the study and red meat is one form, we can not accept the conclusion.

To sum up, the evidence and assumption lend no strong evidence to the arguer's assertion. To validate his recommendation, the arguer necessitates providing more specific information about the assumption, study, and the form of the iron in red meat, or（otherwise） we can not confirm the conclusion’s rectitude.
我就说一个自己的逻辑观点吧：
1.        The arguer fails to provide substantial evidence to validate the recent study.
2．We are not informed about the so-called “well-established” correlation between the red meat and heart disease.
3．The eventual allegation is ungrounded because it based on a rootless assumption that high level of iron strongly associate with the heart disease