Argument142 [by dagger_zhang]欢迎大家拍砖

dagger_zhangUID: 2140939

:) 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.

Merely based on unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the argument draws a conclusion that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease. This argument – appearing to be reasonable at first glance –relies on is open to question and the analysis of the arguer suffers from logical flaws and accordingly the scientific value of this statement is undermined. The main flaws of the argument would be discussed respectively.

In the first place, the author commits a fallacy of unwarranted assumption in assuming that iron in red meat decides the relationship between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease. While we are informed that large amount of red meat in the diet has reference to heart disease and red meat is high in iron, the arguer fails to provide any evidence to illustrate that the iron in red meat would induce heart disease. As a matter of fact, iron just only one element in red meat. It is possible that other elements, such as protein, amino acid, in red meat cause heart disease. Or perhaps the decisive factor which results of heart disease is not iron in red meat but the cooking way. Without account for this possibility the arguer can not convincing conclude that the predominate role that iron plays in red meat induces heart disease.

In the second place, even assuming that iron in red meat is the decisive factor which results of heart disease, the relation between the study and the well established fact still needs further investigation. Firstly, the arguer fails to explain that whether only iron in diet or the production of iron react with other elements cause heart disease. Perhaps only after iron reacted with certain special elements in diet, which could induce heart disease. Secondly, lacking evidence that the chemical form of iron in the study is similar to the one in the red meat, it is entirely possible to access iron in red meat could not be assimilated. Since the arguer fails to account for these possibilities, he or she can not convince us of the assertion that the study has reference to the well established fact.

Last but not least, granted that the arguer justifies all the forgoing assumption, the conclusion remains to be doubtful because the author provided no evidence to confirm the function relation which exists between those two correlations. The author overlooks the possibility that a lot of people, who are vegetarian, might absorb iron through other foods which are high in iron. And it is possible that over-consumption of red meat cause obesity and influence the function of heart. The possibilities mentioned above can demonstrate that heart disease is independent of iron in red meat in some circumstances. Thus, in face of such unimpeachable facts, it is fallacious for the arguer to draw any conclusion at all.

In summary, though the argument seems to be plausible, in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. To make the argument more convincing, further information of the study should be revealed and the relationship between the two correlations mentioned should be reconsidered. Provided that the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

DemoUID: 2331967

寒... 这么多天以来唯一一次用IE.. 居然断网了.. |||

明天再来重新改.. ><