Argument 142

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。

学生原稿

In this argument, the author asserts that the correlation between high levels of iron and heart disease is responsible for the correlation between red meat and heart disease. To support his standpoint he cites a study that shows a relationship between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. Also he employs a well-established link between red meat, which is rich of iron,and heart disease. It seems reasonable at the first glance. However, close scrutiny reveals that this argument is unpersuasive.

To begin with, the author offers no insurance that a correlation between high iron and heart disease actually exists. The study he cites from Eating for Health on which the argument depends is unconvincing. To prove that this study is reliable, the author should offer moreinformation. First, is this study made out by medical experiments and the result is reliable? Second, what percent of iron in a diet will cause heart disease? Third, to what extent is an increased risk of heart disease related to high levels of iron in the diet?

If this study is done by medical experiments, he should show the mechanism why high levels iron can cause heart disease. Scientific evidence is also needed to guarantee that this result is surly reliable. Moreover, high level is also a vogue concept and he should tell us the critical value, the lowest percent of iron that will cause heart disease. Then we can know how much iron can be defined as high levels of iron. As for the relationship between high levels iron and heart disease, probably, the iron level that is a thousand times higher than the critical value might increase only one in a thousand probability to the risk of heart disease. But he does not tell us the clear correlation between high levels of iron and heart disease. Therefore, he does not offer any information to evince that this study is reliable, and his conclusion is totally groundless.

Even if heart disease is surely related to high levels of iron, it is unfair to claim that this relationship is the most probably responsible to why red meat, which is high in iron, can cause heart disease. On the one hand, the level of iron in red meat might be far lower that the critical valued to causes disease. On the other hand, there might be a more dangerous element other than iron in red meat to cause heart disease. Probably, it is the correlation between another kind of element in red meat and heart disease that accounts for heart disease. To support his conclusion, he should substantiate that both iron level in red meat is higher than the critical value of iron to cause heart disease and all other elements in red meat have nothing to do with heart disease. Failing to show any evidence that these two exit, his conclusion is invalid.

In sum, this argument is unsound for a couple of reasons. To strengthen the author’s standpoint, he should have to provide the substantiation that high levels of iron in the diet are surely related to the increased risk of heart disease. And the level of iron in red meat is high enough to cause heart disease. In addition, he must rule out the relationships between all other elements in red meat and heart disease. Lacking such crucial information, I definitely disagree with this argument.

嘉文博译修改稿

In this argument, the author asserts that the correlation between high levels of iron and heart disease is responsible for the correlation between red meat and heart disease. To support his standpoint he cites a study that shows a relationship between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. Also he employs a well-established link between red meat, which is rich of iron,and heart disease. It seems reasonable at the first glance. However, close scrutiny reveals that this argument is unpersuasive.

To begin with, the author offers no insurance(changed to “definite evidence”) that a correlation between high iron and heart disease actually exists. The study he cites from Eating for Health, on which the argument depends, is unconvincing. To prove that this study is reliable, the author should offer moreinformation. First, is this study made out by(changed to “on the basis of”) medical experiments and the result ( is — if you delete “is”, your English will seem much more idiomatic) reliable? Second, what percentage of iron in a diet will cause heart disease? Third, to what extent is an increased risk of heart disease related to high levels of iron in the diet?

If this study is done by(changed to “based on”) medical experiments, he should show the mechanismswhy(changed to “whereby”)high levels of iron(or: “high iron levels”) can cause heart disease. Scientific evidence is also needed to guarantee that this result is surly (Spelling mistake. You should use “surely”) reliable. Moreover, high level is also a vogue(Wrong usage. “Vogue” means “fashion” and you should use the word “vague”) concept and he should tell us the critical value, the lowest percentage of iron that will cause heart disease. Then we can know how much iron can be defined as high levels of iron. As for the relationship between high levels of iron and heart disease, probably, the iron level that is a thousand times higher than the critical value might increase only one in a thousand probability to the risk of heart disease(Please rephrase like this “increase the risk of heart disease by only one in a thousand probability”). But he does not tell us the clear correlation between high levels of iron and heart disease. Therefore, he does not offer any information to evince that this study is reliable, and therefore his conclusion is totally groundless.

Even if heart disease is surely(“indeed” is better.) related to high levels of iron, it is unfair to claim that this relationship is the(delete) most probably responsible to (changed to “for”) why(changed to “the fact that”) the red meat, which is high in iron, can cause heart disease. On the one hand, the level of iron in red meat might be far lower that (Wrong word. “than” should be used.) the critical valued to (changed to “value which”) causes disease. On the other hand, there might be a more dangerous element other than iron in red meat to(changed to “which”) causes heart disease. Probably, it is the correlation between another kind of element in red meat and heart disease that accounts for heart disease. To support his conclusion, he should substantiate that both the iron level in red meat is higher than the critical value of iron to cause(changed to “which causes”) heart disease and all other elements in red meat have nothing to do with heart disease. Failing to show any evidence that these two exit, his conclusion is invalid.

In sum, this argument is unsound for a couple of reasons which I have discussed in the foregoing paragraphs. To strengthen the author’s standpoint, he should have to(delete)provide the substantiation(Such an expression is redundant. Simply say “substantiate”) that high levels of iron in the diet are surely related to the increased risk of heart disease. And(“changed to “and that”) the level of iron in red meat is high enough to cause heart disease. In addition, he must rule out the relationships (changed to “relationship”) between all other elements in red meat and heart disease. Lacking such crucial information, I definitely disagree with this argument.

钱老师点评修改稿

1.　本篇Argument类文章写得较有水平，具有较强的专业色彩。如果对语言不是过分挑剔的话，文字应该说已经变得相当流畅，即使是犯了一些拼写错误，也是在你力所能及的范围内可以避免的， if you can be a little bit more careful. 只有有些“别”字你应该注意，如vogue与.vague，surly与surely。此外还应该注意percent与percentage之间的差别。

2. 你文章的内容也相当翔实，抓的点也是相当的正中要害，议论也相当充分，文章的结构和层次也相当明晰。

3.　我想你在写文章的时候还可以考虑以下二点。第一，原作者说，diet中的铁与心脏病有关，因为red meat富含铁，故red meat导致心脏病。你可以这样来反驳原作者这种因果关系的论述，即diet中还有其他食物，red meat之外的其他富含铁的食物也有可能导致心脏病，故red meat导致心脏病的说法是并不能全然站得住脚的。This point might be even more convincing than the point you made in your essay, that other substances in the red meat might be responsible for the increased risk of heart disease.

4. 第二方面是原作者在进行“偷梁换柱”。要想在Red meat与心脏病之间建立起关联，有一个条件，即只有当diet是由large amounts of red meat 构成时，才有可能导致心脏病，即使red meat富含铁，但稍吃一点red meat也不会导致心脏病，因此，结论中只要吃red meat就会患心脏病是站不住脚的。

5. 还有一点是，我们或许可以用吸烟来作一个类比。众所周知，吸烟导致癌症，但不同的人群对烟中的致癌物质的敏感程度（susceptibility）是不一样的，有些大量抽烟的人并不必定会患上癌症，因为其体内的物质具有很强的抗癌性。同理可证， 不同的人群食用red meat， 也并不必定全部会患上heart disease.