Argument Analysis 3

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.

My response:

Based on the statement above, the author concluded that there is a correlation between the consumption of red meat(which contains high amounts of iron) and increased risk of heart disease. The author based his or her assumption on the findings of the study produced by Eating for Health magazine. However, there are many flaws and loopholes in the study that weakens the author’s arguments of which I shall present below.

The study produced by Eating for Health attempted to establish a strong link between large consumption of red meat and heart disease. The sentence was phrased in a way to mislead readers into believing that the consumption of red meat was the primary link to heart disease. However, this assumption could potentially prove erroneous. There are number of reasons for this.

Firstly, it was not mentioned that red meat was the highest of all amounts of food types consumed by patients with heart disease. The study did not provide concrete evidence and hard numbers in order to strengthen their case. The study did not mention percentages of other food types that patients with heart disease could be consuming, or breakdowns of all food groups that are in the patients’ diets. For all we know, the risk of increased heart disease could be caused by any other types of food.

Even if the increased risk of heart disease was attributed to the consumption of red meat, to assume that the iron content in red meat is the primary cause of increased heart disease is wrong. Red meat is a composite of other minerals as well, any of which could be the cause of increased risk of heart disease.

Also, one must consider how the study was conducted. The author failed to mention the sample population of the study, or which region or regions the study was conducted in, or even who conducted the study. Without taking those factors into consideration, the results produced by the study could be potentially inaccurate and biased.

In sum, the argument stands weak. The author came to his or her conclusion by resting his or her belief on a number of vague assumptions. Had the author taken the above factors into consideration, the argument would have been rendered irrefutable.