argument142 [AWB小组]第六次作业

tly823UID: 2145205

TOPIC: 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.

This argument relies on a serious of unsubstantiated dedution of the complex relations among high level of iron, red meat and heart disease. Although the link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease, and red meat is high in iron are well established, close scrutiny of the conclusion reveals that it is full of loopholes.

First of all, the author provides no evidence that the study’s results are scientifically reliable. This magzine Eating for Health may be not authoritative, and the article was written by an outsider who lack of scientific support and experimental data. Therefore, the correlation between high levels of iron in diet and an increased risk of heart disease is unpersuasive. In order to establish the relationship, the study sample must be sufficient in size and representative of the overall patients; and the study must be engaged by a group of medical scientists in a long span of time.

Furthermore, the correlation between large amounts of red meat in diet and heart disease can be called into question. Is red meat the factor that leads to heart idsease? And is it the only factor? Perhaps large amounts of red meat will aggravate the heart disease, but not the cause of heart disease. Also perhaps other food in diet are the real arch-criminal of heart problems, such as brains,eggs, fat meat, which maybe more harmful than red meat. If either is the case, and if there is no scientific evidence to support this causual relation, then the argument is unconvincing.

Granted that red meat is the arch-criminal of heart disease, we cannot assure that does the high levels of iron in red meat causes the heart disease. It is quite possible that other elements in red meat, say fats, cholesterol or other mineral compositions, will leads to this problem. Thus, lacking evidence that heart disease is linked to iron, it is presumptuous to suggest iron is responsible for the heart disease.

Even assuming that heart disease is the consequence of high levels of iron, and that it is also the consequence of eating red meat, it is arbitrary to conclude that the former relationship attribute to the latter one. No deny that iron is rich in iron, but does the iron fully absorbed by the human body? Perhaps the iron in red meat is basically repelled by body, and thus iron bears no significance to heart disease. On the other hand, we may doubt the soure of iron in function, which author does not provide concerned information. Quite possible that most of this iron comes from other channels, or it exists in body at the beginning in certain group of people. Moreover, we require scentific statistics about how many people eat red meat? How many people eat iron? And consequently how many people suffer from heart disease?Does the patients are those who both eat red meat and high levels of iron? But we are not informed.

In sum, through carefully exploration of the inner causual relationship, we found this argument is groundless. To bolster it, he must provide more scientific facts and clinic experiment results to test the cause of heart problem.