Argument142 [Smile－A组]第四次作业

geniuschenUID: 2131745

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.


Outline:
1.The arguer fails to establish the relationship between high levels of iron and an increased risk of heart disease.
2.The arguer unfairly assumes that the red meat associates with the heart disease.
3.Even if there are links between the high levels of iron and the heart disease as well as between the red meat and the heart disease, it still does not necessarily indicate that the iron in the red meat correlates with the risk of the heart disease.


In this argument, the arguer equals the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease to a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease. To support it, the arguer cites the study which indicated the correlation between iron levels and heart disease as well as the established link between the red meat and the heart disease. However; I think the argument has some logical fallacies in several aspects.

In the first place, the arguer fails to establish the relationship between high levels of iron and an increased risk of heart disease. In fact, no detailed information about the study is provided in the argument, such as the sample size of the study, from which we can deicide whether the samples are representive.Similiarly,we are not informed with the ages,backrounds as well as healthy conditions of all the people involved in the study. It is entirely possible that other factors other than the iron level contribute to the risk of heart disease, for example, different living habits of the people.Thus, in the absence of details of the study, the arguer fails to convince us that the high levels of iron in the diet related to the heart disease.

Secondly, it is also a little hasty that the arguer assumes that the red meat associates with the heart disease. The arguer unfairly overlooks other possibilities that could influence the risk of heart disease .Maybe the unreasonable choice of the food in diet, such as the vegetables supplied with the red meat at the same time or the wrong eating habits of the people is the very factor that has a negative impact on the condition of the heart and thus raise the risk of heart disease. Consequently, without ruling out such possibilities I requested above, the arguer fails to convince me that the red meat has something with the heart disease.

Finally, even if there are links between the high levels of iron and the heart disease as well as between the red meat and the heart disease, it still does not necessarily indicate that the iron in the red meat correlates with the risk of the heart disease. For one thing, maybe the iron of the red meat can not be successfully absorbed by the human body so that perhaps some other elements in the red meat are truly effective in raising the risk of the heart attack. For another thing, no evidence is provided to support that the iron related with the heart disease roots in the red meat. In other words, it is entirely possible that the iron comes from other food or the iron pan, which is used to cook meals.Therefore, lacking enough information about the iron that associated with the heart disease, the arguer's conclusion that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease is open to doubt.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer should show much more reliable study statistics to verify the relationship between the iron as well as red meat and the heart disease. What is more, the arguer should also rule out other factors that could contribute to the risk of the heart disease.

[ 本帖最后由 geniuschen 于 2006-7-31 14:38 编辑 ]

monica98UID: 2124796

整体很好，就是第二个攻击的有点问题，感觉红肉和心脏病的联系应该是题目里默认的背景吧。

xinxinwUID: 2144273

In this argument, the arguer equals the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease to a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease. To support it, the arguer cites the study which indicated the correlation between iron levels and heart disease as well as the established link between the red meat and the heart disease. However; I think the argument has some logical fallacies in several aspects.

In the first place, the arguer fails to establish the relationship between high levels of iron and an increased risk of heart disease. In fact, no detailed information about the study is provided in the argument, such as the sample size of the study, from which we can deicide whether the samples are representive.Similiarly,we are not informed with the ages,backrounds as well as healthy conditions of all the people involved in the study. It is entirely possible that other factors other than the iron level contribute to the risk of heart disease, for example, different living habits of the people.Thus, in the absence of details of the study, the arguer fails to convince us that the high levels of iron in the diet related to the heart disease.for example可以再具体一些

Secondly, it is also a little hasty that the arguer assumes that the red meat associates with the heart disease. The arguer unfairly overlooks other possibilities that could influence the risk of heart disease .Maybe the unreasonable其实这里的choice是不是unreasonable并不重要 choice of the food in diet, such as the vegetables supplied with the red meat at the same time or the wrong eating habits of the people is the very factor that has a negative impact on the condition of the heart and thus raise the risk of heart disease. Consequently, without ruling out such possibilities I requested above, the arguer fails to convince me that the red meat has something with the heart disease.

Finally, even if there are links between the high levels of iron and the heart disease as well as between the red meat and the heart disease, it still does not necessarily indicate that the iron in the red meat correlates with the risk of the heart disease. For one thing, maybe the iron of the red meat can not be successfully absorbed by the human body so that perhaps some other elements in the red meat are truly effective in raising the risk of the heart attack. For another thing, no evidence is provided to support that the iron related with the heart disease roots in the red meat. In other words, it is entirely possible that the iron comes from other food or the iron pan, which is used to cook meals.Therefore, lacking enough information about the iron that associated with the heart disease, the arguer's conclusion that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease is open to doubt.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer should show much more reliable study statistics to verify the relationship between the iron as well as red meat and the heart disease. What is more, the arguer should also rule out other factors that could contribute to the risk of the heart disease.