0910AW 同主题写作第十六期 Argument142 by 辰[Co]

missingusaUID: 2625832

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basing on the study above and a well established view, and then synthesizing them with the fact that red meat is high in iron, the author hastily 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”.

Another conclusion,which seems to be opposite from that of the author, saying "the correlation between red meat and heart disease, then, is most probably a function of the correlation between iron levels and heart disease", is tend to be much closer to both our common sense and evidence given in this argument. The study and the well established view may probably do not have any causal relationship. Perhaps the only correlation between them is that one is former while the other is latter. To combine them by the only evidence that meat is high in iron is weak in logic as is discussed following.

On one hand, while it has been clear in the study that there is a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease, it does not indicate that the iron is from the red meat exactly. As is known to all, spinach, a kind of vegetable, is equally high in iron. Furthermore, the concept of “high levels in the diet” should be further considered. Does it mean the levels in our blood ultimately or those contained originally in our food, especially in red meat? Obviously, in this argument, the former factor, which may seriously bother the conclusion, has been forgotten by the author. It is possible that some other substance in red meat is able to disturb the process taking in iron. In addition, the way red meat is cooked probably also influence one absorbing iron. For example, vitamin C is likely to be destroyed if greens has stayed in pan for a long time or is cooked under high temperature. Thus and thus, only when a closer and all-round inspection has been taken into the study can the author arrive at a more convincing conclusion.

On the other hand, grounding on a well established view, and then throwing out a seem-to-be-related fact that red meat is high in iron, the author vaguely set a correlation between heart disease and iron only. Perhaps this view was built under some particular circumstances or was based on a specific group of people. In addition, it is possible that some other elements contained in red meat, such as fat, protein,or calorie, are related to some negative effects when they are on high levels as well. As is known to all, heart disease is more likely to occur due to burden on one's heart increased by high levels of fat. Therefore, the link between the well established view and the fact should be entirely rebuilt.

All in all, the seriously flawed conclusion in this argument may probably attribute to the author’s ignorance of the origins of the evidence. Maybe the Eating for Health magazine, which reported the study, is mainly talking about iron in vegetables while the well established view was set up from researches on meat. Hence, unfortunately, still a large amount of information is needed to support the conclusion.

Mason.PDUID: 2592013

顶一下 LZ等等 我晚上带你改

Mason.PDUID: 2592013

Basing on the study above and a well established view, and then synthesizing them with the fact that red meat is high in iron, the author hastily 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”.

这个开头我喜欢！发现楼主也是看过666斑竹的Argument如何开头那个贴的吧？实践的比我好！我想问问结尾只用hastily表示作者结论的错误是不是不大明显呢？加一句there are several flaws as follows是不是更好？

Another conclusion,上来就是another？可以这样开头么？which seems to be opposite from that of the author, saying "the correlation between red meat and heart disease, then, is most probably a function of the correlation between iron levels and heart disease", is tend to be much closer to both our common sense and evidence given in this argument.（看到这里终于明白你的意思，但这样的句子头重脚轻，建议将tend..提前，从句which...置后） The study and the well established view may probably do not have any causal relationship这个才是你的TS，放在本段开头吧. Perhaps the only correlation between them is that one is former while the other is latter（和第一句意思一样，删掉，要不你说the former just happen before the latter one）. To combine them by the only evidence that meat is high in iron （这个不能缩减，缩减之后意思歧义很大，肉含铁高？这个可是事实。。。而且对下文的展开也不利）is weak in logic as is discussed following.

On one hand, while it has been clear in the study that there is a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease, it does not indicate that the iron is from the red meat （+doing what?建议加上leading to the result of heart diasase）exactly. As is known to all, spinach, a kind of vegetable, is equally high in iron.（话没说完。。你要说，有可能respondent eating spinach cause a risk of heart disease） Furthermore, the concept of “high levels in the diet” should be further considered. Does it mean the levels in our blood ultimately or those contained originally in our food, especially in red meat? Obviously, in this argument, the former factor, （which may seriously bother the conclusion,删掉，没用） has been forgotten by the author. It is possible that some other substance in red meat is able to disturb the process taking in iron. In addition, the way red meat is cooked probably also influence one absorbing iron. For example, vitamin C is likely to be destroyed if greens has stayed in pan for a long time or is cooked under high temperature. （这例子怎么说到维他命C了？错误类比啊。。你应该直接假设iron in red meat may lose if it has stayed in pan for a long time）Thus and thus（没见过。。）, only when a closer and all-round inspection has been taken into the study can the author arrive at a more convincing conclusion.

On the other hand, grounding on a well established view, and then throwing out a seem-to-be-related fact that red meat is high in iron, the author vaguely set a correlation between heart disease and iron only. Perhaps this view was built under some particular circumstances or was based on a specific group of people. In addition, it is possible that some other elements contained in red meat, such as fat, protein,or calorie, are related to some negative effects when they are on high levels as well. As is known to all, heart disease is more likely to occur due to burden on one's heart increased by high levels of fat. Therefore, the link between the well established view and the fact should be entirely rebuilt.

这段挺好~

All in all, the seriously flawed conclusion in this argument may probably attribute to the author’s ignorance of the origins of the evidence.这句子好！ Maybe the Eating for Health magazine, which reported the study, is mainly talking about iron in vegetables while the well established view was set up from researches on meat.（你这个其实应该放到body1里面去攻击，调查对象不同，导致2者没有必然联系..多好，结论段不应该再挑错了） Hence, unfortunately, still a large amount of information is needed to support the conclusion.

欢迎讨论~
本人实力有限，改得不好还望多讨论