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.
析題：仔細(xì)讀過，發(fā)現(xiàn)這道題有點(diǎn)繞，很多考生曾經(jīng)有過這樣的困惑：“我沒有理解最后一句話的意思is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.是說high iron level于heart disease之間的關(guān)系是red meat與heart disease之間有關(guān)的結(jié)果那作者到底是認(rèn)為high iron level和heart disease之間有沒有關(guān)系阿?”再讀之下，我們會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)作者其實(shí)做了一個(gè)順接推論：red meat引起心臟病------------> red meat里面還有大量的鐵------------------> 高鐵引起心臟病，就是這么一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的推論過程，關(guān)鍵認(rèn)清誰推出誰，就要在審題時(shí)注意到關(guān)鍵的這么看似不經(jīng)意卻被友好的ETS“重復(fù)兩次”的短語“well established”，也就是說“大量紅肉與心臟病之間一定有聯(lián)系”是不容質(zhì)疑的論據(jù)，即本題論據(jù)是不容批駁的，關(guān)鍵問題在于由論據(jù)推導(dǎo)出結(jié)論的時(shí)候犯了“Implicit causal claims”和“gratuitous assumptions”(詳細(xì)邏輯謬誤分類見后文“七宗罪”)，因而我們就可以以次展開攻擊。很多來自網(wǎng)上的文章和提綱在本題上顛倒了推導(dǎo)對(duì)象，把“高鐵引起心臟病”作為論據(jù)來推出“red meat引起心臟病”，結(jié)果導(dǎo)致文章失誤。下面讀者可通過以下范文檢驗(yàn)一下該論證過程和思路：
(范文)
The correlation of the high irons level and heart disease the arguer trying to prove is not as perfect as he assumes. Although at first glance, his cause-and-effect analysis seems quite cogent, yet it can't stand much reexamination.
I agree to the well-established theory concerning the necessary relation between the large amount of red meat in people's diet and heart disease, but no other possibilities can be ruled out except for one of the ingredients-iron. It is obvious that the arguer constructs his building of conclusion on the basis of the conviction of the deleterious function stems from the iron. While not only a single iron does red meat contain, as we all know, many other components also have the influential role once being indigested into human body. For instance, some type of particular protein it might include, instead of the iron, is the substantial root of heart attack. So the arguer's peroration has no convincing power for this gratuitous assumption.
Moreover, even though his deduction does really derive from some passage of authoritative researches he has no opportunity to list below, the assertion about the high levels of iron related to the possibility of heart disease cannot be got through by merely so qualified the evidence exhibited here. According to the arguer's elicitation, we believe the red meat does contain large amount of iron, however, we might ask ourselves such questions enlightened by our common sense, "Does the amount of iron involved in red meat reach the dangerous level enough to lead to heart disease?" The answer we can't obtain through this short argument, thus directly make us doubt the whole fruits the arguer attained.
As it stands, the study reported on the published media Eating for Health is inevitable filled with some lethal logic fallacies, which finally weakens the cogency of the whole claims. To such a paramount and sensitive issue relative to people's health and life, scrutiny is not allowed to be neglected; and it is just for this point, I'm afraid, no people could ultimately abjure for eating red meat as a result of reading this ridiculous article. (352 words)
析題：仔細(xì)讀過，發(fā)現(xiàn)這道題有點(diǎn)繞，很多考生曾經(jīng)有過這樣的困惑：“我沒有理解最后一句話的意思is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.是說high iron level于heart disease之間的關(guān)系是red meat與heart disease之間有關(guān)的結(jié)果那作者到底是認(rèn)為high iron level和heart disease之間有沒有關(guān)系阿?”再讀之下，我們會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)作者其實(shí)做了一個(gè)順接推論：red meat引起心臟病------------> red meat里面還有大量的鐵------------------> 高鐵引起心臟病，就是這么一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的推論過程，關(guān)鍵認(rèn)清誰推出誰，就要在審題時(shí)注意到關(guān)鍵的這么看似不經(jīng)意卻被友好的ETS“重復(fù)兩次”的短語“well established”，也就是說“大量紅肉與心臟病之間一定有聯(lián)系”是不容質(zhì)疑的論據(jù)，即本題論據(jù)是不容批駁的，關(guān)鍵問題在于由論據(jù)推導(dǎo)出結(jié)論的時(shí)候犯了“Implicit causal claims”和“gratuitous assumptions”(詳細(xì)邏輯謬誤分類見后文“七宗罪”)，因而我們就可以以次展開攻擊。很多來自網(wǎng)上的文章和提綱在本題上顛倒了推導(dǎo)對(duì)象，把“高鐵引起心臟病”作為論據(jù)來推出“red meat引起心臟病”，結(jié)果導(dǎo)致文章失誤。下面讀者可通過以下范文檢驗(yàn)一下該論證過程和思路：
(范文)
The correlation of the high irons level and heart disease the arguer trying to prove is not as perfect as he assumes. Although at first glance, his cause-and-effect analysis seems quite cogent, yet it can't stand much reexamination.
I agree to the well-established theory concerning the necessary relation between the large amount of red meat in people's diet and heart disease, but no other possibilities can be ruled out except for one of the ingredients-iron. It is obvious that the arguer constructs his building of conclusion on the basis of the conviction of the deleterious function stems from the iron. While not only a single iron does red meat contain, as we all know, many other components also have the influential role once being indigested into human body. For instance, some type of particular protein it might include, instead of the iron, is the substantial root of heart attack. So the arguer's peroration has no convincing power for this gratuitous assumption.
Moreover, even though his deduction does really derive from some passage of authoritative researches he has no opportunity to list below, the assertion about the high levels of iron related to the possibility of heart disease cannot be got through by merely so qualified the evidence exhibited here. According to the arguer's elicitation, we believe the red meat does contain large amount of iron, however, we might ask ourselves such questions enlightened by our common sense, "Does the amount of iron involved in red meat reach the dangerous level enough to lead to heart disease?" The answer we can't obtain through this short argument, thus directly make us doubt the whole fruits the arguer attained.
As it stands, the study reported on the published media Eating for Health is inevitable filled with some lethal logic fallacies, which finally weakens the cogency of the whole claims. To such a paramount and sensitive issue relative to people's health and life, scrutiny is not allowed to be neglected; and it is just for this point, I'm afraid, no people could ultimately abjure for eating red meat as a result of reading this ridiculous article. (352 words)