Argument142 同主题写作

一目了然UID: 2204816

题目：ARGUMENT142- The article entitled 'Eating Iron' in last month's issue of Eating for Healthreported that a recent study found a correlation between high levels of iron inthe 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 dietand 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 thatthe correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, then, is mostprobably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.

Outline：
1.质疑study，diet的组成、做法...
2.质疑食物中含铁量与心脏病的Posotive correlation
3.质疑红肉与心脏病的线性关系

这是我的第一篇完整的Argu，耗时巨长，从晚上一直憋到深夜，但我想一定要把第一篇写出来！这篇文章几乎是复印的范文牙膏那篇的（大家一看就知道），期间还老查金山，因为自己的模版还没有出来，并且发现句子和个别单词确实是巨大的问题，读题能感觉到哪里有错，但是怎么表达出来，就是最大的问题（语言的准确）。第一篇，完成了，呵呵。要感谢我的MM给我BB，还有SX在我身后打拳皇给我那需要的键盘敲击声..  :)

PS:有一个问题是：“a recent study ”是可以批的，但是“it is well established that there is a link between ”能批吗？
     别人已经说了well-established了哦~~~
    欢迎大家讨论
The argument above is well-presented, however, the arguer commits several fallacies in the process of reasoning. Fisrt, the credibility of the study is open to question. Second, the argument assumes a correlation to a causal relationship. In addition, the arguer fails to consider other alternative factors that might attribute heart disease in red meat.
To begin with, there is  no information about how the study was conducted. Without the study's process and method, we can not assert that the high level in iron directly causes the increased risk of  heart disease. We may wonder/ask: What is the diet mentioned above consistof? Is it bacon, fresh vegetables, or rice? How is the diet  cooked? Is the food unbaked, half-cooked or over-baked? And More, as far as we kown, such study lacking a contrasting experimental group with the details respected above, it is far too hasty to believe in the study's result.
Next, even if one accepts the study's validity, the argument remains questionable. The argument assumes that the correlation between high levels of iron and increased risk of heart disease means that the former firsthand causes the latter. But the argument fails to provide sufficient evdence to support this conclusion. In addition, the arguer fails to consider the presence of  other mciroelements, which, perhaps with only a small amount, might possibly conttribute to the heart disease, or other illness which indirectly arise the heart disease.
Finally, the argument 's author fails to exclude other alternative explanatios. It is possible that not the iron in the red meat, but other microelements or compounds that higher the risk of heart disease. For instance, fat as a good example, is superfluous in our body and for some extent blocks up our blood vessle, which predict the heart disease. It is also possible that the group of people who prefer to eating red meat a lot leads a unhealthy diet, in which they consume other health-damaging food as a companion with the red meat, such as  hard drinks, will no doubtedly do harm to the body.Moreover, high level of iron in red meat does not equals high absortion of it, it also might be the possibility that the cooking of the red meat reduce the ingesting effeciency of the iron.
To sum up, the argument, while it seems logical at the first glance,  has some flaws discussed above. The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the study is correct and support that the correlation is indeed a causal relationship--The iron in red meat actually causes the rising risk of heart disease. It could be further improved by ruling out alternative explanations for the causal relationship.

cynthialUID: 2269776

Argument142 同主题写作
题目：ARGUMENT142- The article entitled 'Eating Iron' in last month's issue of Eating for Healthreported that a recent study found a correlation between high levels of iron inthe 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 dietand 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 thatthe correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, then, is mostprobably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.

Outline：
1.质疑study，diet的组成、做法...
2.质疑食物中含铁量与心脏病的Posotive correlation
3.质疑红肉与心脏病的线性关系

The argument above is well-presented（不知道是否可以用well-presented）, however, the arguer commits several fallacies in the process of reasoning. First, the credibility of the study is open to question(似乎没有open to question应用open to doubt). Second, the argument assumes a correlation to a causal relationship. In addition, the arguer fails to consider other alternative factors that might attribute heart disease in red meat.(开头可以再简洁些,这些错可以在下面的主题段中再指出)

To begin with, there is no information about how the study was conducted. Without the study's process and method, we can not assert that the high level in (of) iron directly causes the increased risk of heart disease. We may wonder/ask: What is the diet mentioned above (consisting) of? Is it bacon, fresh vegetables, or rice? How is the diet cooked? Is the food unbaked, half-cooked or over-baked? And More (Furthermore), as far as we know, such study lacking a contrasting experimental group with the details respected (concerning) above, it is far too hasty to believe in the study's result.

Next, even if one accepts the study's validity, the argument remains questionable. The argument assumes that the correlation between high levels of iron and increased risk of heart disease means that the former firsthand causes the latter. But the argument fails to provide sufficient (evidence) to support this conclusion. In addition, the arguer fails to consider the presence of (other microelements), which, perhaps with only a small amount, might possibly contribute to the heart disease, or other illness which indirectly arise the heart disease.

Finally, the (argument’s) author fails to exclude other alternative (explanations). It is possible that not the iron in the red meat, but other microelements or compounds that higher (enhance) the risk of heart disease. For instance, fat as a good example (前面已经有了for instance后面再接上as a good example重复了), is superfluous in our body and for some extent blocks up our blood vessels, which predict (predict在这用的不准确) the heart disease. It is also possible that the group of people who prefer to eating(有prefer to do 和prefer doing 但是没有prefer to doing) red meat a lot (a lot of red meat) leads (, which leads to ) a unhealthy diet(我觉得吃大量的红肉不是造成不健康的饮食,而是属于不健康的生活方式), in which they consume other health-damaging food as a companion with the red meat, such as  hard drinks, will no (doubted) do harm to the body. Moreover, high level of iron in red meat does not (equal to) high (absorption) of it, it also might be the possibility(might 与后面的possibility重复) that the cooking of the red meat reduce the ingesting(ingesting用词不准) efficiency of the iron.

To sum up, the argument, while it seems logical at the first glance, has some flaws discussed above. The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the study is correct and support that the correlation is indeed a causal relationship--The iron in red meat actually causes the rising risk of heart disease. It could be further improved by ruling out alternative explanations for the causal relationship.

看着看着就跑道语言上面去，就忽视了逻辑的联系了，语言问题比较严重不过作为第一篇这也在情理之中，加油~@~
关于展开的话我就不多说了，开头和结尾再提炼一下，不过如果你的打字速度很快完全可以在三十分钟内完成缜密的逻辑推理的话那也可以多写点。

[ 本帖最后由 cynthial 于 2007-2-27 22:05 编辑 ]

一目了然UID: 2204816

哇咔咔！
谢谢桃子MM的批改啦~~

继续努力.......：）
还有好多工作~~：）