argument142 [smile-B组]第四次作业, 大家尽情拍！～

applehattieUID: 2195344

觉得写的时间没控制好，不知道有没有逻辑错误啊！

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.

1．The arguer fails to provide substantial evidence to validate the recent study.
2．We cannot exclude the possibility that there must be other elements contained in the red meat that cause 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.

By providing a rootless assumption that high levels of iron strongly associate with the heart disease, the arguer draws a conclusion that red meat, which contains ample iron, highly relate with heart disease. However, in my point of view this argument suffers from several fallacies.

To begin with, the arguer fails to provide the substantial evidence to validate the recent study, which concerning about the correlation between the high levels of iron and heart disease. Firstly, it lacks information about the operating process of the study: what makes the study figure out the research result? who conducted or controlled the study? how many patients or participants involved in this study ? Maybe researchers discovered the correlation just base on some medical document data, which not be obtained through scientific and correct approaches, maybe the reasoning process has no logical and cognitive skills, maybe the number of the patients are not enough to testify the universalism of the study, and maybe they are all senior or the people who inclined to be attacked by heart disease. So without providing detailed and persuasive information about the study the arguer cannot make us believe the validity of it.

Secondly, before excluding the possibility that there must be other undiscovered elements contained in red meat that increase risk of heart disease, the arguer's assertion is unfounded. Also, the so-called "well-established link" cannot clarify that the relevancy of iron and heart disease. There are many other elements existing in red meat, such as fat and greasy, which can highly induce heart disease. If a person continues to take large amounts of red meat as his three meals for a month, his blood sugar level in blood would be increasingly high, it is quite likely that he would have high blood pressure which can be a severe burden to his heart. By doing so, it is easily for him to suffer from heart attack. So neglecting to exclude the possibility discussed here the deduction is unconvincing.

Lastly, the eventual allegation is not tenable because it based on a rootless assumption that high levels of iron strongly associate with the heart disease. The basis of the study is dubious, which is not inspected thoroughly and lacks the credibility. And there is no substantial evidence to prove that red meat is necessarily associated with heart disease. If the passage includes the given factors discussed above, it will be sound and persuasive.

zhy5186612UID: 2167373

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.

1．The arguer fails to provide substantial evidence to validate the recent study.
2．We cannot exclude the possibility that there must be other elements contained in the red meat that cause 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.提纲挺好的

By providing a rootless assumption that high levels of iron strongly associate with the heart disease, the arguer draws a conclusion that red meat, which contains ample iron, highly relate with heart disease. However, in my point of view this argument suffers from several fallacies.个人认为作者的结论是两个关系之间的联系

To begin with, the arguer fails to provide the substantial evidence to validate the recent study, which concerning about the correlation between the high levels of iron and heart disease [是 increased risk of heart disease,复述有问题]. Firstly, it lacks information about the operating process of the study: what makes the study figure out the research result?[？模糊] who conducted or controlled the study?[how was this study conducted? 好些吧] how many patients or participants involved in this study ? Maybe researchers discovered [感觉不大好，made] the correlation just base on some medical document data, which [-may-] not be obtained through scientific and correct [两个adj用一个就好了] approaches, maybe the reasoning process has no logical and cognitive [？] skills, maybe the number of the patients are not enough to testify the universalism of the study, and maybe they are all senior or the people who inclined to be attacked by heart disease. So without providing detailed and persuasive information about the study the arguer cannot make us believe the validity of it [make us believe the validity of it --make it enough validite]. [感觉这一段除了样本数量外，其他理由不是很服人或者用的不好]

Secondly, before excluding the possibility that there must be other undiscovered elements contained in red meat that [may] increase risk of heart disease, the arguer's assertion [that从句把这个关系说出来] is unfounded. Also, the so-called "well-established link" cannot clarify that the relevancy of iron and heart disease. There are many other elements existing in red meat, such as fat and greasy, which can highly induce heart disease. If a person continues to take large amounts of red meat as his three meals for a month, his blood sugar level in blood [ in blood 删除] would be increasingly high, it is quite likely that he would have high blood pressure which can be a severe burden to his heart. [这个说法可靠吗？我不清楚] By doing so, it is easily for him to suffer from heart attack. So neglecting to exclude [neglecting to exclude --neglecting] the possibility discussed here the deduction is unconvincing.

Lastly, the eventual allegation is not tenable because it based on a rootless assumption that high levels of iron strongly associate with the heart disease. The basis of the study is dubious, [The basis of the study is dubious--the study is dubious on the base ] which is not inspected thoroughly and lacks the credibility. And there is no substantial evidence to prove that red meat is necessarily associated with heart disease. If the passage includes the given factors discussed above, it will be sound and persuasive. [这一段有点乱]

总体评价
1 文章写得越来越好哈，
2 就这篇A个人看法如下：
作者给出了两个关系
第一个关系是：high levels of iron in the diet --〉 increased risk of heart disease
另一个关系是： red meat --〉heart disease
他的结论是：关系high levels of iron in the diet --〉  heart disease是关系 red meat --〉heart disease的某种程度上的对应（或函数）
这样我觉着逻辑错误应该是作者用：将概念diet与概念red meat 等同，将概念increased risk of heart disease与概念heart disease等同。
所以主要应该先攻击这两点，然后说那个调查有问题。

applehattieUID: 2195344

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.

By providing a rootless assumption that high levels of iron strongly associate with the heart disease, the arguer draws a conclusion that red meat, which contains ample iron, highly relate with heart disease. However, in my point of view this argument suffers from several fallacies.

To begin with, the arguer fails to provide the substantial evidence to validate the recent study, which concerning about the correlation between the high levels of iron and increasing risk of heart disease. Firstly, it lacks information about the operating process of the study: what makes the study figure out the correlation between iron and heart disease? how the study was conducted? how many patients or participants involved in this study ? Maybe researchers discovered the correlation just base on some medical document data, which may not be obtained through scientific approaches, maybe the number of the patients are not enough to testify the universalism of the study, and maybe they are all senior or the people who inclined to be attacked by heart disease. So without providing detailed and persuasive information about the study the arguer cannot convince us.

Secondly, before excluding other possibilities the arguer's assertion that there is a link between large amounts of red meat and heart disease is unfounded. The so-called "well-established link" cannot clarify that the relevancy of iron and heart disease. There are many other elements existing in red meat, such as fat and protein, which can highly induce heart disease. If a person continues to take large amounts of red meat as his three meals for a month, his blood sugar level would be increasingly high, it is quite likely that he would have high blood pressure which can be a severe burden to his heart. By doing so, it is easily for him to suffer from heart attack. It might also be the case that iron in the red meat cannot be assimilated by the human body. So neglecting the possibility discussed here the deduction is ungrounded.

Lastly, the eventual allegation is not tenable because it based on a rootless assumption that high levels of iron strongly associate with the heart disease. The study is dubious on the base, which is not inspected thoroughly and lacks the credibility. Also the association of red meat and heart disease is questionable. If the passage includes the given factors discussed above, it will be sound and persuasive.
大致改了一下，感觉结尾还是不行

[ 本帖最后由 applehattie 于 2006-7-31 17:00 编辑 ]

zhy5186612UID: 2167373

不错，自己多思考，文章才会有进步
加油