GREARGUMENT写作范文之

GRE ARGUMENT写作范文之二
题目：123题
The following appeared in a health newsletter.
Eating a heavy meal may increase the risk of heart attack. A recent survey of 2,000 people who had had a heart attack revealed that 158 of them said they had eaten a heavy meal within 24 hours before their heart attack, and 25 of them said they had eaten a heavy meal within 2 hours before their heart attack. Eating and digesting food releases hormones into the bloodstream and temporarily increases heart rate and blood pressure slightly. Both of these things put stress on the heart. Therefore, people who are at risk of having a heart attack can lower that risk by not overeating.
范文 475 words
庄子 2004-3-9 嘉仕花园广州
On the basis of a recent survey, the author of the article claims that eating a heavy meal may increase the risk of heart attack, and then concludes that not overeating can lower the risk of heart attacks. However, the author’s reasoning suffers several alarmingly obvious logical flaws.
First of all, suppose that a heavy meal definitely results in high risks of heart attack. It is logically unconvincing to conclude that not overeating will necessarily lower the risks of heart attack. Logically speaking, if one event sufficiently triggers the other event, then without the former it is still possible that the latter happens. In fact this is also a common sense. For example, if it rains the ground may become wet. However, if it has not rained at all, the ground still can be wet for many other reasons. Similarly, not overeating will not necessarily reduce the possibility of suffering heart attacks.
Secondly, the argument that eating a heavy meal increases the risk of heart attack is dubious. The sole evidence is a recent survey. However, the sample of the survey covered only 2,000 people. However, these people might be neither typical nor representative to all the population of those who are at the risk of heart attack. If the population is 200 million, the 2,000 people under survey are clearly insufficient to make the reasoning sound.
Even if the survey makes a sense, the reasoning is also weakened by a logical flaw called Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Put is precisely, although the 158 people said that they had had a heavy meal within 24 hours before their heart attack, and 25 of them said they had eaten a heavy meal within 2 hours before their heart attack, it is hard to believe that it is the heavy meal that caused their heart attack. For no evidence has been offered to establish the cause-effect relationship between the
two events. It is possible that other factors triggered the heart attacks. For instance, before the heart attack, besides the heavy meal, most of they also had experienced extreme panic or physical exercises. If so, the heart attack might well be attributed to the panic or something else rather than the heavy meal.
Furthermore, it is claimed that eating and digesting food releases hormones into the bloodstream and temporarily increases heart rate and blood pressure slightly. But it is unknown yet whether the hormones in the bloodstream and the slight increase in the blood pressure have any thing to do with the heart attack. Unless such a relationship between the two has been articulated, the evidence lends no support to the argument.
Given above, the article in the health newsletter is undermined by various logic fallacies. To better support the arguments, it is necessary for the author to provide more information and to warrant his or her diverse assumptions.
欢迎您的下载，资料仅供参考！。