argument142 [非g不可小组]同主题写作

feljo414UID：2210010

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: 455          TIME: 0:28:43+n(改了很多错误)         DATE: 2007-3-1

In this argument, the speaker claims that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease. To support it, the speaker cites a study that there is a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. He also points out that there is a well-established link between red meat and heart disease. A clear examination, I found there are several logical problems with this argument.
To begin with, the speaker claims that there is a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease based of a recent study. However, there is no evidence to substantiate this study. It is entirely possible that there is not any correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease since it is only a issue published on a unconvincing magazine. Or perhaps, in this diet there are other factors which increase the risk of heart disease that the scientists did not exclude. For that matter, basing on this scant study the speaker's conclusion is unjustified.
Secondly, even if there is a correlation between high levels iron in diet and an increased risk of heart disease, it is unfairly for the speaker to claim that there is a well-established link between red meat and heart disease. On the one hand, there is no evidence that iron in red meat is the major iron resource for the eater, it is entirely possible that, some other food may have a higher level of iron in the diet of the eater. And also, the iron in meat can not be easily absorbed by the eater. In this case, there is not a strong correlation between red meat and an increased risk of heart disease.
On the other hand, although there is a strong correlation between red meat and an increased risk of heart disease, it is unjustified for the speaker to claims that there is a well-established link between red meat and heart disease. Because there are many other factors that can cause a heart disease. It is entirely possible that the eater who has a higher risk of heart disease does not suffer heart disease ultimately. For that matter, the well-established link between red meat and heart disease is unconvincing.
To sum up, this argument is not substantiated as it stands. To convince me, the speaker should provide more evidence that there is a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease, and iron in red meat is the may iron resource in diet.  Also, the speaker should exclude other possible factors that can cause heart disease.

[ 本帖最后由 feljo414 于 2007-3-1 16:14 编辑 ]

wwltlUID：2156586

In this argument, the speaker claims that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease. To support it, the speaker cites a study that there is a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. He also points out that there is a well-established link between red meat and heart disease. A clear examination, I found there are several logical problems with this argument.To begin with, the speaker claims that there is a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease based of a recent study. However, there is no evidence to substantiate this study. It is entirely possible that there is not any correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease since it is only a issue published on a unconvincing magazine. Or perhaps, in this diet there are other factors which increase the risk of heart disease that the scientists did not exclude. For that matter, basing on this scant study the speaker's conclusion is unjustified.Secondly, even if there is a correlation between high levels iron in diet and an increased risk of heart disease, it is unfairly for the speaker to claim that there is a well-established link between red meat and heart disease. On the one hand, there is no evidence that iron in red meat is the major iron resource for the eater, it is entirely possible that, some other food may have a higher level of iron in the diet of the eater. And also, the iron in meat can not be easily absorbed by the eater. In this case, there is not a strong correlation between red meat and an increased risk of heart disease. On the other hand, although there is a strong correlation between red meat and an increased risk of heart disease, it is unjustified for the speaker to claims that there is a well-established link between red meat and heart disease. Because there are many other factors that can cause a heart disease. It is entirely possible that the eater who has a higher risk of heart disease does not suffer heart disease ultimately. For that matter, the well-established link between red meat and heart disease is unconvincing.To sum up, this argument is not substantiated as it stands. To convince me, the speaker should provide more evidence that there is a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease, and iron in red meat is the may iron resource in diet.  Also, the speaker should exclude other possible factors that can cause heart disease.

呵呵，这篇argument诡异得很。不少人都被他最后那句话侃晕了。我的观点和不少人都不一致。我觉得这个argument最关键的是怎么理解最后一句话。我的理解，作者想说的是：正是因为红肉和心脏病之间的存在关联，所以才会出现研究所显示的结果――即，高铁和心脏病之间有关联。
当然，理论上你可以驳斥这两个关联都不成立，正如你文章里所写的。因为没有说明怎样实验，样本，数据，blablabla。但是，你忽略了一点很重要的错误，那就是作者在没有证据的情况下，把两个表象有重叠的关联解释为因果关系。其实这里的function是可以理解为因果关系的，即，正是correlation2（红肉和心脏病），于是才出现correlation 1。
每次说到这个问题的时候我自己也觉得很绕，很蹊跷。不过我还是觉得这才是最重要的错误。我好像在同主题和自己的文章后面还有解释，你可以看看。呵呵，原来只知道英文不好，现在解释这道题才发现中文也这么不好，写得不够清楚。