0910AW SPECTACULAR之【同主题写作】第十五期 ARGUMENT142=August Rush=by Mason.PD

Mason.PDUID: 2592013

按照bernina版主的思路写的，我觉得2段就够了。。

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.
WORDS: 451
TIME: 00:40:00
DATE: 2009/8/9 22:55:32

Basing on the article entitled 'Eating Icon' reported a recent study found a correlation between high levels of icon and heart disease and a well established view that there is a link between large amounts of red meat and heart disease, the author concludes that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is most possibly a result of the correlation between red meat and heart disease on the assumption of the study and well-established view. However, there are still some intermediate steps that one should think about before jumping into the conclusion.

To begin with, the author fails to establish a casual relationship between the recent study and the well-established view. In effect, the recent study is just published after the well-established view in time. Besides, the argument trying to persuade that the link between red meat and heart disease leads to the correlation between high iron and heart disease is based on fallacious relationship that the author claims that red meat is high in iron. But actually we can only deduce that the correlation between high iron and heart disease results in the link between red meat and heart disease. All the statements above the author assumes merely ground on the two incidents without any association.

Moreover, even if there is any relationship between the recent study and the well-established view, the author still commits another mistake to make the assumption between eating red meat to absorb high icon and get heart disease. In fact, we can gain much of iron from various kinds of food, such as spinach. Without any research about other food in high iron and merely based on the evidence saying that red meat is high in iron is groundless to conclude any relationship between red meat and heart disease. Meanwhile, we cannot draw any conclusion that it is the high iron in red meat that leads to heart disease. As the author cannot rule out the influence of other nutrients, the result of the study begs question. After all, we know red meat contain other nutrients and their effects on heart disease is doubtful. Perhaps other nutrients in red meat result in heart disease rather than high levels of iron; or perhaps all things in red meat function as a whole to work on the causation of heart diseases. So the author cannot make any further steps to claim his conclusion is correct.

To sum up, judging from the analysis above, the argument is not well-reasoned as it claims. To bolster the author's conclusion, the author needs to provide more evidence showing the recent study and well-established view do have a casual relationship and rule out any other alternatives may affect the conclusion.

Mason.PDUID: 2592013

修改稿~

Basing on the article entitled 'Eating Icon' reported a recent study found a correlation between high levels of icon and heart disease and a well established view that there is a link between large amounts of red meat and heart disease, the author concludes that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is most possibly a result of the correlation between red meat and heart disease on the assumption of the study and well-established view. However, there are still some intermediate steps that one should think about before jumping into the conclusion.

To begin with, the author fails to establish a casual relationship between the recent study and the well-established view. In effect, the recent study is just published after the well-established view in time. Besides, the argument is based on fallacious relationship that the author misleads the cause and effect. Actually we can merely deduce that the correlation between high iron and heart disease results in the link between red meat and heart disease. All the statements above the author assumes merely ground on the two incidents without any association.

Moreover, even if there is any relationship between the recent study and the well-established view, the author still commits another mistake to make a hypothesis assume the high levels of iron which increase the risk of heart disease is the kind of iron originated from red meat. In fact, we can gain much of iron from various kinds of food, such as spinach. Without any research evaluating the relationship between other kings of food in high levels of iron and the risk of heart disease, it is too presumptuous for the author to assume the dangerous iron is only derived from red meat. Merely based on the evidence saying that red meat is high in iron is groundless to conclude any relationship between red meat and heart disease.

Meanwhile, the author cannot draw any conclusion claiming that it is just the high levels of iron that in red meat leads to heart disease. As the author cannot rule out the influence of other nutrients in red meat, the result of the study begs question. After all, red meat contains other nutrients and their effects on heart disease are doubtful. Perhaps other nutrients in red meat result in heart disease rather than high levels of iron; or perhaps all things in red meat function as a whole to work on the causation of heart diseases. So the author cannot make any further steps to claim his conclusion is correct.

To sum up, judging from the analysis above, the argument is not well-reasoned as it claims. To bolster the author's conclusion, the author needs to provide more evidence showing the recent study and well-established view do have a casual relationship and rule out any other alternatives which may affect the conclusion.

berninaUID: 2503038

紫色：我的建议
红色：错误
绿色：不错


Basing on the article entitled 'Eating Icon' reported a recent study found a correlation between high levels of icon and heart disease and a well established view that there is a link between large amounts of red meat and heart disease, the author concludes that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is most possibly a result of the correlation between red meat and heart disease on the assumption of the study and well-established view. However, there are still some intermediate steps that one should think about before jumping into the conclusion.

开头有两个问题：1，千万记得，在开头不要总结文章，这是最最出力不讨好的事情，argument是不需要你总结文章的，你尽管直接切入就好。 你想，紫色的这一段你在考场上打出来要花1-2分钟吧，而这时间如果用在最后修改小错误上，岂不是更值得？
2 最后一句，终于说到重点了。可是，你说的太客气了，说得到这个结论前还要有几步，那你的言下之意就是说作者其实是可以得到他的结论的，只是中间少了几步而已。。。。如果你都肯定了，还说什么呢？我们a就是要说这个作者得不到结论才对。放心大胆的说，就说作者得不到，不用那么委婉。要strong.
所以，我认为比较理想的开头就是，一句说这个作者得不到他的结论，再说由于存在blabla 漏洞，而这些原因就是你下文要写的，在开头先提一下，不过记住，一定要简洁。


To begin with, the author fails to establish a casual relationship between the recent study and the well-established view（作者estabulish了，只是这个estabulish是错误的。the author hastily equates the corralation in the recent study with the link in the well-estabulished view. ）. In effect, the recent study is just published after the well-established view in time(删掉). Besides, the argument is based on fallacious relationship that the author misleads the cause and effect（删掉）. Actually we can merely deduce that the correlation between high iron and heart disease results in the link between red meat and heart disease according to the augument. All the statements above the author assumes merely ground on the two incidents without any association.
第一段的论证还是挺好的，除了删掉一些多余的话以外，已经说清楚了想说明的问题。

Moreover, even if there is any relationship between the recent study and the well-established view, the author still commits another mistake to make a hypothesis assume the high levels of iron which increase the risk of heart disease is the kind of iron originated from red meat（这个让步让的很牵强，我们为什么要让步？就是要给这一段的论述做个铺垫，比如说你让步了 说他们有关系，那么这一段就要在有关系也推不出结论上做文章。你这一段的论述根本和这两个研究的关系不挨边，让步没有必要了。）. In fact, we can gain much of iron from various kinds of food, such as spinach. Without any research evaluating the relationship between other kings of food+which in high levels of iron and the risk of heart disease(删掉), it is too presumptuous for the author to assume the dangerous iron is only derived from red meat. Merely based on the evidence saying that red meat is high in iron is groundless to conclude（that it is the iron contained in red meat that has the relationship with heart diease as mentioned in the recent study.） any relationship between red meat and heart disease.
挺好的论述 就是有些太单薄。你可以具体说说，比如参与调查人员的饮食啊，他们吃不是红肉啊 之类的。。随便想啦。其实很好说的。

Meanwhile, the author cannot draw any conclusion claiming（删） that it is just the high levels of iron that in red meat leads to heart disease. As the author cannot rule out the influence of other nutrients in red meat, the result of the study begs question. After all, red meat contains other nutrients, and(删) whether their（they also possess） effects on heart disease are doubtful. Perhaps other nutrients in red meat result in heart disease rather than high levels of iron(这就是你在重复说过的话了，可以说，因为作者没提供相关资料啊，信息啊什么的，说明红肉中只有铁才能导致心脏病，他的论述就是无力的。之类这样的话，就是死抓住作者的错误。); or perhaps all things in red meat function as a whole to work on the causation of heart diseases. So the author cannot make any further steps to claim his conclusion is correct.

To sum up, judging from the analysis above, the argument is not well-reasoned as it claims. To bolster the author's conclusion, the author needs to provide more evidence showing the recent study and well-established view do have a casual relationship and rule out any other alternatives which may affect the conclusion.

这样的结尾很理想了， 错误+建议 或 让步+ 建议 都可以。

In sum:不错的文章，语言和逻辑都算清晰，就是再添点内容就更充实了。
再接再厉，不错不错。＾＾

any comment is welcomed

Mason.PDUID: 2592013

谢谢斑竹批改！
这里我还有几个问题问下呵~
关于开头：
1.我只是想试图整理文章的思路，这个我记得iv666斑竹的这个帖子里读到的https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=920961&highlight
所以我想如果我开头只说 In this argument, the author concludes that… however, it suffers from several logical flaws.一来看着像模版，二来又很平庸。。
2.Argument的目的不是帮助author更好的reach the conclusion吗？那么我说作者在思考和假设的过程中有漏洞，这样的句子不合适吗？我觉得如果说the argument is well-presented, but it is not well-reasoned这样的句子太模版了，于是就自己造了一个这样的模版开头。。

关于他因攻击：
1.论述中的他因假设这篇牵涉到了“三无”survey，我受草木版主影响觉得这样的survey都是logical的，所以我觉得假设调查人员的什么情况的可以作为flaws攻击吗？

写在最后：
还是再次谢谢斑竹！
我很弱智的问几个问题：
1.开头和语法错误斑竹觉得哪个更重要去修改？我现在还是写不进30分钟，所以估计只能取其一了
2.还有8天我就考了，现在的情况是我的Argument题库还不熟悉，这个熟悉题库是不是最重要的？是不是比整理模版重要？

berninaUID: 2503038

1, personal 的观点： argument开头= the author cannot reach his/her conclusion, since........(总结漏洞) 类似这样的。语言可以自己换

2 是，但是我们不能承认他可以根据这篇文章达到他的论点。你的首段结尾说的是，one should think, 但最好是 the author should reconsider......我这么说有点严格了。

3 开头用模板，最后一定要留出5分钟来修改。

4 熟悉题库很重要，8天够了，开头应简洁明了，直接说错在哪里就好，这个模板很好弄的啊。

加油