[i习作temp] argument142 红肉.. 昨天被lastangel搅糊涂了.... [复制链接]

lindor
UID：2290025

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 670
注册时间: 2007-1-4
精华: 0
帖子: 3

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-2-27 14:53:51 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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: 537       TIME: 0:29:00       DATE: 2007-2-27

In this argument, the arguer concludes 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 cite a recent study and a well-established knowledge as evidence to illustrate those correlations mentioned in this argument.  At the first glance, the conclusion is logical sounded; however, upon close scrutiny, it has several critical flaws as follows.

To begin with, whether the study is creditable is open into doubt. On the one hand, we are not informed how the study was conducted. As a common sense, the scientific experimental methodology is essential for the result of a study. It is possible that most participants were female, or their jobs tend to be hard ones which could bring out intense worry and uncertainty. If this study did not obey the principle of random sampling, the result of the study could not apply to the general situation as a whole. On the other hand, we are not informed whether the result of this study is representative. The size of study is also essential for justifying its result. Perhaps, the study was undergone in fewer than 100 people.  For either circumstance, the arguer could not firmly draw any conclusion based on this unreliable study.

Furthermore, even if the study is reliable, the arguer simply assumes that the correlation of the high levels of iron in the diet and heart disease implies the causation between the high levels of iron and the increased risk of heart disease, which, of course, is not the case.  There is no direct evidence to attest that it is the iron increased the risk of heart disease. Perhaps other ingredients in the diet cooperated with iron contribute to the increased risk of heart disease, and each of them could not singly make effect on heart disease.  Or perhaps, the forms of iron, such as pure ones or oxidized ones, are the decided factors which are harmful to heart. Without ruling out these possibilities, it is gratuitous to assert that the high levels of iron have a causal-effect on an increased risk of heart disease.

In addition, the arguer further assumes that there is the causation between red meat and heart disease on the basis of a link in red meat and heart disease. We are not informed what kind of link it is. Perhaps, large amount of red meat could diminish the risk of heart disease.  Besides, it is possible that the main factor is not the red meat, but the red meat combined with other food. Or the type of cooking is essential; perhaps baked red meat would increase the risk of heart disease, whereas the boiled ones decrease.

Finally, even if problems aforementioned have no question, the relation among the iron, the red meat, and the heart disease is not necessarily associated.  As a general rule, many food contain high level of iron, as the spinage etc. Whether they have a correlation with heart disease as the red meat does? If they have, then the red meat is not the exclusive resource of high level of iron, then the correlation between iron and heart disease is not the function of that of red meat and heart disease. Moreover, the arguer fails to consider other alternative reasons of heart disease. It is quite possible that two people eat the same amount of red meat  which include the same amount of high levels of iron, after a while, one of them had a heart attack, while the other did not, because the former one was anxious or anger at something, or the later one lead a much healthier life.  In short, the physical condition, emotion control, as well as the healthy diet, all could lead to an increase risk of heart disease.

In short, this conclusion is logically unconvincing since the evidence cited in this argument does not lend strong support to it. To bolster it , the arguer should provide more information on the study to justify its result. In addition, the arguer should prove that the causation between the iron and heart disease and between the red meat and the heart disease.

Aza Fighting~