Argument142 [Victors小组]第四次作业 半夜鬼画糊

solartorchUID: 2244205

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.


天啊这最后一句话到底是什么意思啊。。。单看句子我觉得是因为red meat à heart disease, 所以 high iron level à heart disease. 但是看全文我觉得反过来才符合逻辑~ 所以还是按反过来批的。
思维极其混乱，一开始觉得有三个前提没论据，然后又觉得其实三个前提里面一个是论据（study result），还有两个可以合并成一个前提(the one well-established)
提纲是这样的
1，  论据不可信，没给背景，我也可以说我做了一个study，口说无凭（怎么感觉wo在无理取闹），不确切，没给出是哪一种铁
2，  前提不可信不确切，没论据，首先red meat是不是喝heart disease 有关系就不知道。其次 也许red meat里面并不含很多铁，即使含也不知道是哪一种铁。
3，  写到这里我觉得分不分论据和前提都无所谓了，或者说在这道题里面根本就分不出来。作者最后的结论是A是B的原因，A：high iron level à heart disease, 也就是我第一段批地B: red meat à disease 也就是我第二段批的。所以我第三段就说，A 也不对，B也不对，所以A 是B 的原因就更是一个没有经过慎重考虑的hasty conclusion.。即使前面批的现在统统都对了，study result正确了，establishment 也成立了， 但是即使知道是哪一种铁，红肉里面也不一定就是铁对心脏病起了作用，也许根本没有被吸收，即便被吸收了但作者没有排除red meat里面就一定没有其他对心脏病更直接的影响因素(causal oversimplification)。

本来思路就乱，我还是挣扎着半夜写的。。。鬼画糊,看结尾就看的出来~ 五百多字
The author of the article concludes that the correlation between high iron levels is most probably a reason to explain the correlation between red meat and heart disease. To support this conclusion the author cites a study result claimed the correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease, as well as presents a well-established link between red meat and heart disease. However, close scrutiny of the evidences and of the author’s line of reasoning reveals that he or she provides little credible support for the article’s conclusion.

First of all, the author fails to provide credibility and precision on the study result about the correlation between iron in diet and heart disease. The argument doesn’t furnish information on the source of the study. Perhaps Eating for Health is a trivial entertaining magazine. It is entirely possible that the result is not serious or the study is carried out by a group of unsophisticated newcomers in lack of scientific method. Even though we accepted the authenticity of this study result, the author offers a controversial definition on “iron”. Iron has various types. Yet based on the argument, I’m not giving the determinant explanation on iron. Hence, the study result is lack of solid ground and having a vague implication.

Secondly, the well-established link that the author mentioned in the argument is poorly supported and defined. The author unwarranted assumes that there is a founded link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease. To strengthen it the author must provide the background of the well-established link. He or she need to rule out other possibilities leading to heart disease. In addition, absent either a clear definition of the term or clear evidence that red meat is high in iron. No evidence is offered to substantiate this crucial assumption, or is provided the exact type of iron.  

Finally, it is a hasty conclusion the author claims in the end of argument on the basis of the study and the well-established link between red meat. Both of the conditions are logically flawed and in lack of precision. Even if the study and established link both be assumed valuable, it is hardly suffices to prove that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease. In the well-established link, it is unreasonable to infer that it is the same type of iron implicated in the study which serves a link with the heart disease. Also, the author overlooks the myriad of other possible reason for red meat’s correlation with hart disease. Perhaps the iron in red meat is not fairly be dissimilated. Or perhaps there are other elements in red meat which contribute more directly than iron.

In sum, the author’s argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To better convince me, the author should provide better evidence on the authenticity and precision of the study result and well-established link and the accordance of the iron’s types in them.   

totalsm45518UID: 2286658

The author of the article concludes that the correlation between high iron levels is most probably a reason to explain the correlation between red meat and heart disease. To support this conclusion the author cites a study result claimed the correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease, as well as presents a well-established link between red meat and heart disease. However, close scrutiny of the evidences and of the author’s line of reasoning reveals that he or she provides little credible support for the article’s conclusion.

First of all, the author fails to provide credibility and precision on the study result about the correlation between iron in diet and heart disease. The argument doesn’t furnish information on the source of the study. Perhaps Eating for Health is a trivial entertaining magazine.(这个不是很好吧，毕竟从名字看也像是个健康类杂志，而且这种不应该作为主要攻击点。) It is entirely possible that the result is not serious or the study is carried out by a group of unsophisticated newcomers in lack of scientific method. Even though we accepted the authenticity of this study result, the author offers a controversial definition on “iron”. Iron has various types.（应该进一步再说一下，有很多种，比如说什么，可能这里是什么，而另一种不适合，就这么说一句，本来是很大的错误，就显得有些单薄了） Yet based on the argument, I’m not giving the determinant explanation on iron. Hence, the study result is lack of solid ground and having a vague implication.

Secondly, the well-established link that the author mentioned in the argument is poorly supported and defined. The author unwarranted（是不是unwarrantedly??） assumes that there is a founded link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease. To strengthen it the author must provide the background of the well-established link. He or she need to rule out other possibilities leading to heart disease.(这种论证方式不适合放在中间进行攻击，可以放在结尾总结，你可以换一种说法，就好了，只是说他缺少什么就可以，而不是告诉他怎么论证更好) In addition, absent either a clear definition of the term or clear evidence that red meat is high in iron（这句话主谓都是什么呢？好像是病句吧？）. No evidence is offered to substantiate this crucial assumption, or is provided the exact type of iron.（这里又说回到第一段提出的了，显得结构不清，不能来回说）  

Finally, it is a hasty conclusion the author claims in the end of argument on the basis of the study and the well-established link between red meat. Both of the conditions are logically flawed and in lack of precision. Even if the study and established link both be assumed valuable, it is hardly suffices（两个谓语了） to prove that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease. In the well-established link, it is unreasonable to infer that it is the same type of iron implicated in the study which serves a link with the heart disease. Also, the author overlooks the myriad of other possible reason for red meat’s correlation with hart disease. Perhaps the iron in red meat is not fairly be dissimilated. Or perhaps there are other elements in red meat which contribute more directly than iron.

In sum, the author’s argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To better convince me, the author should provide better evidence on the authenticity and precision of the study result and well-established link and the accordance of the iron’s types in them.   

总得来说写的不错，但是结构有点混乱了，不是很清晰的感觉。另外，所有格的那个上逗号，建议用半角，不然占两个字符的位置，加油！！

solartorchUID: 2244205

感谢totalsm45518，其实我两次批iron type的原因是，第一段是说那个study里面没有指出iron的type,第二段是说那个well-established link里面没有指出iron的type.
自己想的时候觉得挺清楚的，但是写出来就不是那么一回事了，我现在再看一遍都要给绕进去了。。。