argument142 还有三天就考了，求猛拍

harrietannUID：2204456

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: 419          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-2-27

Well presented but unfortunately not well reasoned, the argument fails to convince me that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is a function of the correlation between red meet and heart disease.

First and foremost, the statement correlation is too vague to deduce the following conclusion. That is because the 'correlation' could be referred to as both a positive relationship and a negative one, which means that the correlation between high level of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease could be the latter one, that is, high level of iron in the diet co happens with decrease risk of heart disease. So does the following statement, a link between large amount of red meat and in the diet and heart disease--this link could also be a negative one. Either of this were the case and the other one a positive one, the conclusion would just go to the opposite side as the article deduced. In cases other than this, it could fall into a dilemma.

Another major weakness in the article involves that there is a tiny change in the statements, which would undermine the argument a lot, even given the two cited relationships both be positive ones. The premise was expressed as 'high levels of iron in the diet' and 'large amount of red meat in the diet', while the conclusion 'high iron levels' and 'large amount of red meat' instead. Common sense tells me that not all the nutrition could be used as we eat them. That is to say, the iron in the red meat may not be digested in the human body. In other worlds, these complements could be set out? without differing by human bodies. If so, the high level of iron in the diet may not be the positive factor attributing the high risk of heart disease. It could be other gradients in the red meat such as danguchun or fat the high risk of heart disease relies on. And, the manner people lead a life could also be the reason for their heart disease, say they do not smoke nor drink, and do not eat much red meat in the mean time, and they do not suffer from heart disease.

What is more, it is provided that the iron in the red meat causes high risk heart disease, there is a word misused in the article, that is, function. As the article state, it means the correlation between red meat and heart disease causes the correlation between n the iron and heart disease. This could hardly make any sense.

In sum, the conclusion suffers several logical flaws.

虎头蛇尾的感觉~~

一目了然UID：2204816

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: 419          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-2-27

Well presented but unfortunately not well reasoned, the argument fails to convince me that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is a function of the correlation between red meet meat and heart disease.

First and foremost, the statement‘s correlation is too vague to deduce the following conclusion. That is because the 'correlation' could be referred to as both a positive relationship and a negative onereferred to could be either a p or a n , which means that the correlation between high level of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease could be the latter one, that is, high level of iron in the diet co happens无此词汇，concurrence of A and B 或其他表达 with decrease risk of heart disease. So does the following statement, a link between large amount of red meat and in the diet and heart disease--this link could also be a negative one. Either of this werewas the case and the other one a positive one这句有点拗, the conclusion would just go to the opposite side as the article deduced. In cases other than this, it could fall into a dilemma.

Another major weakness in the articleargument involves that there is a tiny change in the statements, which would undermine the argument a lot, even given the two cited relationships both be positive ones让步放在前面逻辑上更好. The premise was expressed as 'high levels of iron in the diet' and 'large amount of red meat in the diet', while the conclusion 'high iron levels' and 'large amount of red meat' instead. Common sense tells me that not all the nutrition could be usedabsorbed as we eat them. That is to say, the iron in the red meat may not be digested in the human body. In other worlds, these complements could be set out?这里有点不明白，是打字太快？ without differing by human bodies. If so, the high level of iron in the diet may not be the positive factor attributing to the higher risk of heart disease. It could be other gradients in the red meat such as danguchun牛逼啊-_-~  cholesterol 记住啦 or fat the high risk of heart disease relies on. AndIn addition, the manner people lead a life could also be the reason for their heart disease, say they do not smoke nor drink, and do not eat much red meat in the mean time, and they do not suffer from heart disease这里最好举不好的生活方式导致心脏病来作为Alternative explanation.

What is more, it is provided that the iron in the red meat causes high risk of heart disease, butthere is a word misused in the article, that is, function. As the article states, it means the correlation between red meat and heart disease causes the correlation between n the iron and heart disease. This could hardly make any sense时间不够了吧.

In sum, the conclusion suffers several logical flaws排除其他的可能性，时间真的似乎不够了.

本人也是第一次改文章，限于水平，肯定有没有改到的和越改越错的，所以请harrietann MM 有选择性的看

开头段直入主题指出最大的错误
中间段落分三层进行论述：correlation and causal relationship
                        抽象的语言有点过多
                        请多想一些例子与其他可能性充实一下内容
                        后面的不用多说，肯定是时间打紧
我认为如果觉得考试时时间太紧张的话，干脆把炮火放在中间段落的论证上，因为得分点与ETS的考查点就是你的论证过程，Issue又一篇范文似乎就是没有写完的，但是中间论证的相当好相当严谨相当充实

要多出时间建议做以下： 把Argu的题目看一下啊，快速阅读快速审题快速构思瞬间在心中组织起全文的框架，再写就好多了

祝你AW顺利，Best wishes!

harrietannUID：2204456

谢谢‘一目了然’！！