WORDS: 360          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008/8/15 12:10:36

In this argument, the speaker concludes that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease. To support this conclusion, the speaker cites a recent study reported in the article entitled "Eating Iron", which found a correlation between high iron levels and heart disease. In addition, the speaker points out that there is a well-established link between red meat and heart disease and that red meat is high in iron. However, these alone are not sufficient to constitute a convincing argument.

To begin with, the conclusion is relied on the assumption that there is correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, which is the result of the study reported in the article, entitled "Eating Iron". Yet, no sufficient evidence is provided to assure the validity of the study. We have to doubt who conducted this study and how the study was conducted, which are both very important for us to judge whether the result of the study is reliable.

Further more, another problem with this argument is that it fails to provide evidence to demonstrate that the correlation between red meat and heart disease is due to the iron in red meat. First, the speaker falsely assumes that large amounts of red meat in the diet are necessary to lead to high level of iron in the human body. He does not take into account that how iron is absorbed by the body is a factor that determines the level of iron as well as the amount of red meat. Secondly, other components in red meat are also likely to contribute to heart disease, such as rich fats. However, the speaker does not mention these factors and provides no evidence to rule them out.

In sum, the speaker fails to make this argument sound and acceptable. To stronger support his conclusion, the speaker should have provide more information to show the validity of the study about the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease. In addition, we need know more about the correlation between red meat and heart disease and also the iron in red meat.

202.Humans arrived in the Kaliko Islands about 7,000 years ago, and within 3,000 years most of the large mammal species that had lived in the forests of the Kaliko Islands had become extinct. Yet humans cannot have been a factor in the species' extinctions, because there is no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the mammals. Further, archaeologists have discovered numerous sites where the bones of fish had been discarded, but they found no such areas containing the bones of large mammals, so the humans cannot have hunted the mammals. Therefore, some climate change or other environmental factor must have caused the species' extinctions.

In this argument, the arguer concluded that some climate change or other environmental factor rather than humans must have caused the species' extinctions in the Kaliko Islands. To substantiate this conclusion, the aruger points out that there is no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the mammals. Moreover, the auguer cited the discovery of archaeologists that the bones of fish had been discarded in numerous areas while no such areas contained the bones of large animals. However, these alone do not constitute a logical argument in favor of its conclusion and fail to provide convincing information to make this argument sound and invulnerable.

To begin with, tha statement is based on the assumption that humans had no significant contact with the mammals. However, the assumption itselt is not reliable to support the auguer's conclusion. The fact that archarologists have not found the envidence of humans's contact with mammals can not prove that the envidence does not exist. In other words, perhaps in the future archarologists will discover the envidence that humans did have great contact with mammals.

Secondly, even if it has been made sure that humans contacted little with mammals, it is not an convincing envidence to demonstrate that humans cannot have been a factor in the species' extinctions. It is possible that humans led to the mammals' extinction indirectly. If humans broke the food chains involving those mammals by consuming the plants and animals that other mammals fed on, or intruded on mammals' territory and deprived them of their living space, these also contribute to the mammals' extinctions.

In addition, the mere fact that the sites where the bones of fish had been discarded did not contain the bones of large mammals is insefficient to conclude that the humans cannot have hunted the mammals. The auguer does not take into consideration the factor that humans may only take flesh home with bones after they hunted a mammal, which was very likely to happen when the mammal was too large and heavy for humans to move as a whole.

To sum up, thie argument is not persuastive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more information regarding the  mammals  in the Kaliko Islands at that time, for example, the diet of them, where they lived before humans arrived on the islands and where after that. To better evaluate the argument, we need to know more about the humans' living ways in the Kaliko Islands; particularly, we need to know what humans did to other mammal species.

17.The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.

"Walnut Grove's town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ-which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance."

In the argument, the author concluded that Walnut Grove should used EZ Disposal rather than ABC Waste to collects trash, merely based on some dubious evidence and unconvincing assumptions. To substantiate the conclusion, the author cited a survey to show people's satisfaction with EZ's performance. Additionally, it is pointed out that EZ collects trash more frequently than ABC. Moreover, the author infers that EZ is going have more trucks than ABC. However, these alone do not constitute a logical argument supporting the conclusion and fail to provide convincing information, making this argument sound and invulnerable.

First of all, as for the survey cited in the argument, the respondents can not represent all the residents of Walnut Grove and it is possible that only a small part of the residents responded to the town survey last year. Even if most resident were satisfied with EZ's service indeed, there is no evidence that ABC will not be satisfactory. As EZ has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years, no one in this town knows about ABC. Maybe ABC will do as well as EZ and even better than it.

Secondly, the fact the EZ collects trash more frequently than ABC fails to indicate that it is worthwhile to choose EZ and pay more money. If collection once a week is enough for it, why should Walnut Grove pay more for more collection that is unnecessary?

Another flaw that weakens this argument is that the author assumes that EZ will provide better service than ABC in that EZ has ordered additional trucks, resulting in a larger fleet than that of ABC, which is not compelling. Perhaps EZ ordered new trucks to extend its business to another town rather than to use them for the collection services in Walnut Grove. Even if those new trucks will be used in Walnut Grove, it is possible that Walnut Grove doesn't need so many trucks for its trash and the additional trucks just produce more exhaust gas and brings more air pollution.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author must provide more information about ABC waste and make a comparison between the two companies to show that the higher fee of EZ means better services. The author should also analyze the need of Walnut Grove and prove that more frequent collection provided by EZ with its more trucks is necessary.