argument142 【米国有米】寒假第一天作业

holdingUID: 2285054

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: 420          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-1-27

In this argument, the author draws a 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. To support this conclusion, the arguer show up an article and the well-established link between red meat and heart disease. It is seemed that this argument can draw the conclusion reasonably. But if you research it carefully, you can find many logical flaws which make it unpersuaded.

Firstly, the author claims that an article reported that a recent study found a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. There is no evidence that can prove the article is authoritative and study is well proved. For example, the article is not made by some experts or authoritative organization at all, so article itself can prove nothing about the relationship between high iron and heart disease.

Also, the study cited in the article has no more information about its authority. We do not even know who did this study and when it was finished. For example, it is possible that the study is just a homework done by a college freshman and be finished about ten years ago. So the study is not well persuaded because of leak of the freshman's knowledge and disadvantage of experiment equipment.

Besides, the author claimed that the relationship between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease is well established and red meat is high in iron. According to this, the arguer falls to build the relationship between high level iron and heart disease. There is no evidence to prove that the iron in red meat can cause heart disease. It is possible that the iron in red meat can not absorb by human body at all. So although red meat is high in iron, it can not cause heart disease at all. What’s more, every thing happen as a result of many aspects, in another word, only one cause can not make things happened. So the link between high levels of red meat and heart disease is probably a result of other component in red meat instead of iron.

In sum, the author should show more evidence to prove his conclusion. He should make the article and the study cited more persuaded and well proved. And at same time, the arguer should prove that the iron in red meat can be absorbed and can cause heart disease.

绚烂夏花UID: 2245298

In this argument, the author draws a 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. To support this conclusion, the arguer show up an article and the well-established link between red meat and heart disease. It is seemed(it seems) that this argument can draw the conclusion reasonably.(读起来有点不通畅) But if you research it carefully, you can find many logical flaws which make it unpersuaded(unpersuasive).是否可以写成: at first the argument seems reasonable, however after careful thinking I find the argument suffers from several critical flaws which make it unpersuasive.

Firstly, the author claims that an article reported that a recent study found a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. There is no evidence that can prove the article is authoritative and study is well proved. For example, (maybe)the article is not made by some experts or authoritative organization at all, so article itself can prove nothing about the relationship between high iron and heart disease.

Also, the study cited in the article has no more information about its authority. We do not even know who did this study and when it was finished. For example, it is possible that the study is just a homework done by a college freshman and be finished about ten years ago. So the study is not well persuaded because of leak of the freshman's knowledge and disadvantage of experiment equipment.

Besides, the author claimed that the relationship between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease is well established and red meat is high in iron. According to this, the arguer falls(fails) to build the relationship between high level iron and heart disease. There is no evidence to prove that the iron in red meat can cause heart disease. It is possible that the iron in red meat can not (be )absorb(absorbed) by human body at all. So although red meat is high in iron, it can not cause heart disease at all（重复）. What’s more, every thing happen as a result of many aspects, in another word, only one cause can not make things happened（happen） . So the link between high levels of red meat and heart disease is probably a result of other component in red meat instead of iron.我觉得这个so的结论有点牵强：P，是否可以写得更委婉一点？

In sum, the author should show more evidence to prove his conclusion. He should make the article and the study cited more persuaded and well proved. And at same time, the arguer should prove that the iron in red meat can be absorbed and can cause heart disease.[fly]This is sample text[/fly]

用词可以再扩展，一些论点没有完全展开，如果能写得详细就更好了：）