issue142 红肉与心脏病,同主题写作.....

ernest81888UID: 2247639

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: 491          TIME: 0:30:00+修改(无法限时)          DATE: 2007-2-26

In this analysis, the arguer concludes that there is a connection between red meat and heart disease. To justify his conclusion, the arguer points out that high level of iron in the diet causes a high risk of heart disease. Meanwhile, he also hits red meat is high in iron. At first glance, the argument appears to be somehow plausible, but further reflection reveals that it suffers at least 3 logical flaws.

To begin with, the first problem involved in this argument is the reliable of the statement from the magazine--Eating for Health. However, the information provided in this report is too vague to be informative. We have strong reason to question the creditability and neutrality of the report in which the conductor has invested interest. Perhaps, the writer is a person who advocates vegetarianism or an animal protector who is greatly care of animal life, or just an ordinary people who hate to eat beef or mutton, and therefore is prone to take the position to his own advantage. If this is the case, then the arguer’s conclusion based upon it is highly suspect.

Next, even if the report is significantly reliable, the argument unfairly assumes the eating red meal is the only means of ingest the high level substance-iron. What is not stated, however, is whether these irons are contained in a form in red meal that is usable by human body. It is entirely possible that the particular configuration of iron found in red meal can not be absorbed by the human body, thereby producing no baleful effects by people eating more red meal. By failing to address these possibilities the arguer has presented an unconvincing argument.

Last but not least, granted the iron contained in red meal could be absorbed by human body, the arguer also commits a fallacy of "causal oversimplification" in assuming that eating a great amount of meal is the only element results in people's heart disease. However, this is not necessarily the case. Common sense tells us other products in diet may also contains high level iron that affect human's risk of heart disease ,such as a great amount of spinage, soy, or yolk. Further more, environment situation like working press, lifestyle, or genetic might explain the reason why these people run a risk of healthy problem. Without ruling out and considering other possibilities that would affect the heart disease occur rate, the arguer's conclusion is still groundless as it stands.

In sum, the argument is not well supported. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer should provides sufficient evidence to confirm the report reliable to be believed. To better access the strength of conclusion, the arguer should make a clear investigation to find out whether these irons in red meal could be absorbed for human body. At last, it is also useful to clarify whether eating red meal in diet is the only reason influencing the risk of getting heart disease.

hurchuUID: 2300705

In this analysis, the arguer concludes that there is a connection between red meat and heart disease. 他的结论不在这吧To justify his conclusion, the arguer points out that high level of iron in the diet causes a high risk of heart disease. Meanwhile, he also hits red meat is high in iron. At first glance, the argument appears to be somehow plausible, but further reflection reveals that it suffers at least 3 logical flaws.


To begin with, the first problem involved in 有必要？ this argument is the reliable 名词of the statement from the magazine--Eating for Health. However, the information provided in this report is too vague to be informative. We have strong reason 感觉有点中式to question the creditability and neutrality of the report in which the conductor has invested interest. Perhaps, the writer is a person who advocates vegetarianism or an animal protector who is greatly care of animal life, or just an ordinary people who hate to eat beef or mutton, and therefore is prone to take the position to his own advantage. If this is the case, then the arguer’s conclusion based upon it is highly suspect. 我觉得这段不是很有说服力，毕竟人家是科学家嘛，大部分科学家还是有点职业道德的，这样说起不是眼前太黑暗，可以从他的研究的不周密的地方下手，显得我们很周密，而不仅仅是怀疑人家的人格。


Next, even if the report is significantly reliable, the argument unfairly assumes the eating red meal is the only means of ingest the high level substance-iron. What is not stated, however, is whether these irons are contained exist in a form in red meal that is usable by human body. It is entirely possible that the particular configuration of iron found in red meal can not be absorbed by the human body, thereby producing no baleful effects by people eating more red meal. By failing to address these possibilities the arguer has presented an unconvincing argument.


Last but not least, granted the iron contained in red meal could be absorbed by human body, the arguer also commits a fallacy of "causal oversimplification" in assuming that eating a great amount of meal is the only element results in people's heart disease. he cited a well established fact that a link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease exists, but he didn't actually say that no other factor can be the cause of the illness.However, this is not necessarily the case. Common sense tells us other products in diet may also contains high level iron that affect human's risk of heart disease ,such as a great amount of spinage, soy, or yolk. Further more, environment situation like working press, lifestyle, or genetic might explain the reason why these people run a risk of healthy problem. Without ruling out and considering other possibilities that would affect the heart disease occur rate, the arguer's conclusion is still groundless as it stands.


In sum, the argument is not well supported. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer should provides sufficient evidence to confirm the report reliable to be believed.语法？ To better access the strength of conclusion, the arguer should make a clear investigation to find out whether these irons in red meal could be absorbed for human body. At last, it is also useful to clarify whether eating red meal in diet is the only reason influencing the risk of getting heart disease.

个人意见，仅供参考。呵呵，像股评呢。;d: