嘉文博译的Argument范文（整理版）浏览+下载

imongUID：140258

from www.proftrans.com

------
已经由imong完成增补编辑。原始下载计数1064
19/6 2004 updated.

imongUID：140258

Argument150
The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine
"The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California confirm my conclusion. In 1915 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 1992 there were only four species of amphibians observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. The decline in Yosemite has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1920 (trout are known to eat amphibian eggs). But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline."

Sample Essay

In this argument, the writer of the letter concludes that global pollution of water and air has caused a decline in the number of amphibians worldwide. To support his or her conclusion, the writer cites the results of two studies, seventy-five years apart, that purportedly show that the number of amphibians in one park in California, Yosemite National Park, have drastically declined. Additionally, the writer casts aside a given reason for the decline, stating that the introduction of trout to the park (who are known to eat amphibian eggs) does not explain the worldwide decline in the number of amphibians. This argument defies simple logic and suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the argument is based on only two studies in one specific part of the world, Yosemite National Park in California. It is impossible to pinpoint a worldwide theory for the decline of amphibians based on any number of studies in only one specific location in the world - the specific varieties of amphibians, geographical conditions and other location specific variables prohibit such a sweeping generalization. One very specific location cannot be used as a model for all other locations, even within one particular country, let alone the entire world. The writer provides no evidenced whatsoever that links the Yosemite study with any purported effects anywhere else in the global environment.

Secondly, the two separate studies were done seventy-five years apart. There is no evidence that the two studies were conducted in a similar manner over the same duration of time or even over the same exact areas of Yosemite National Park, or that the exact same study methods were used. For example, perhaps the first study lasted over an entire year and was conducted by twenty-five experts in amphibious biology, resulting in the finding of seven species of amphibians in abundant numbers. By contrast, perhaps the second study was conducted over a period of one week by a lone high school student as a school science project. The writer offers no basis on which to compare the two studies, leaving it open as to whether the two are truly comparable in their breadth, scope and expertise.

Finally, the writer notes that the decline in the amphibian population has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters in 1920, but then dismisses that argument on the purely specious basis that it does not explain the worldwide decline. This part of the argument blithely dismisses the very relevant fact that trout are known to eat amphibian eggs. This attempt to "prove a negative" is the last resort of those in search of some vain attempt to prove the truth of the matter that they are asserting. It is basically impossible to "prove a negative"; this is an attempt to shift the burden of proof back on to the nonbelievers of the argument. The global environmental situation and that of Yosemite National Park are not perfectly correlated, and the fact that the trout may very well be responsible for the decline cannot simply be dismissed without further proof.

In summary, the writer fails to establish any causal relationship between global air and water pollution and the decline of amphibious life worldwide. The evidence presented is extremely weak at best and narrowly focuses on one tiny area of the globe, as well as putting forward as proof two studies about which almost nothing is known. For a stronger argument, the writer would need to directly put forth evidence associating air and water pollution with not only the decline at Yosemite but also throughout other areas of the world.
(599 words)

参考译文

[题目]
下述文字摘自一封致某环保杂志编辑的信函：
"全球两栖动物数量的减少明显标志着全球性水与大气的污染。对加利福尼亚州约塞米蒂国家公园内两栖动物所作的两项研究可证实我的这一结论。1915年公园内有七个物种的两栖动物，每一物种都拥有丰富的种群数量。然而，1992年，在公园内所能观察到的两栖动物物种仅为四类，且每一物种的种群数量已骤然下降。约塞米蒂公园动物数量减少被归咎于始于1920年的将鲑鱼引入公园水域的做法(众所周知，鲑鱼喜食两栖动物所产的卵)。但鲑鱼的引入不可能成为约塞米蒂公园动物数量减少的真正原因，因为它无法来解释全球范围内的动物数量减少。"

[范文正文]
在本项论述中，信函作者的结论是，全球性水与大气污染已致使世界范围内两栖动物的数量减少。为了支持其论点，作者援引了两份时隔75年之久的研究结果，这两份结果据称可证明加利福尼亚州某一公园――即约塞米蒂国家公园――内两栖动物的数量锐减。此外，该作者撇开了动物数量减少的一个已知原因，陈述道，将鲑鱼引入公园(据称，鲑鱼喜食两栖动物所产的卵)这一做法不足以解释世界范围内两栖动物数量上的减少。这一论点有悖于简单的逻辑，犯有一系列关键性的逻辑谬误。

首先，该论点所依据的仅仅是世界上某一特定地点――即加利福尼亚州约塞米蒂国家公园――内的两份研究。围绕着两栖动物数量减少这一问题，如果仅以世界上一个特定的地点为样品，再多数量的研究也无法得出一种精确的、适用于全世界的理论。两栖动物的具体种类、地理状况以及其他因地点而特异的变数均不允许我们作出如此一概而论的总括。一个非常具体的地点不能用作一个代表所有其他地点的模型，即使在一个特定的国家内也不行，更不用说在整个世界范围内了。信函作者没有提供任何证据将约塞米蒂公园的研究与全球环境中任何其他一处地方的任何所宣称的效果联系起来。 其次，所提及的那两项互为独立的研究时隔75年之久。没有证据可证明这两项研究是在相同的时间跨度内以相似的方式进行的，或是在约塞米蒂公园完全相同的地点进行的，或所使用的研究方法绝然相同。例如，第一项研究可能持续了整整一年之久，且是由两栖动物生物学领域的二十五位专家共同进行的。结果是发现了七大种类数目众多的两栖动物。相反，第二项研究可能是一位高中生孤身一人所做的学校的一个科学课题，仅为期一个星期。信函作者没有提供将此两项研究进行比较的基础，从而使两项研究在其广度、范围以及专业水准方面的可比性不得而知。 最后，信函作者指出，两栖动物种群数量的减少，已被人归咎于1920年将鲑鱼引入公园水域这一做法，但紧接着又以该论据无法解释世界范围内动物数量减少这一似是而非的依据将该论据予以否认。信函作者论述中的这一部分漫不经心地将一个极为相关的事实弃置不顾，即众所周知，鲑鱼喜食两栖动物所产的卵。这种"prove a negative "的尝试往往是这样一类人所惯用的最后伎俩，他们竭力寻找某种徒劳的尝试，力图去证明他们所宣称的事物的真理。从根本上讲，"prove a negative"是不可能的。这样一种做法是试图将论证的负担重新转嫁给不相信该论据的人。全球的环境情形与约塞米蒂公园的情形并不绝然对应。鲑鱼极有可能造成了两栖动物数量减少这一事实在缺乏进一步证据的情况下是断不能轻易予以否认的。

概括而言，信函作者没能在全球空气和水污染与世界范围内两栖生命数量减少之间建立起任何因果关系。该作者所拿出的证据充其量也是极为苍白无力的，狭隘地将焦点集中在世界的一片极小的区域上，作为证据而援引的两项研究几乎不能说明任何问题。欲使其论点更具力度，信函作者尚需摆出直接的证据，将水和空气污染不仅仅与约塞米蒂公园的两栖动物数量减少联系起来，而且也与世界其他地方的动物数量减少联系起来。

imongUID：140258

Argument151
The following is a letter to the editor of the Atticus City newspaper
"Former Mayor Durant owes an apology to the city of Atticus. Both the damage to the River Bridge, which connects Atticus to Hartley, and the traffic problems we have long experienced on the bridge were actually caused 20 years ago by Durant. After all, he is the one who approved the construction of the bridge. If he had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, on which approximately the same amount of public money would have been spent, none of the damage or problems would have occurred. Instead, the River Bridge has deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years than has the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. Even though the winters have been severe in the past several years, this is no excuse for the negligence and wastefulness of Durant."

Sample Essay

The author of this letter concludes in his or her argument that former Mayor Durant should apologize to the city of Atticus because he is at fault for damage that has occurred over a twenty-year time span to the River Bridge. The author also blames Mayor Durant for long-time traffic problems on the bridge, stating that Durant actually caused these problems twenty years before because he approved the construction of the bridge and did not approve a wider and better-designed bridge. The arguer may have a personal vendetta against Mayor Durant but the elements stated in the argument do not support such an accusation.

First of all, the author squarely places blame on Mayor Durant for the simple act of approving the construction of the bridge. There is no evidence presented that merely approving the building of the bridge had anything whatsoever to do with the damage that has occurred or the traffic problems on the bridge. It is entirely possible that Mr. Durant simply approved the idea of constructing the bridge and not the design of the bridge or the contractor that built it. Simply approving the construction of the bridge does not in and of itself cause damage to that bridge or any resulting traffic problems.

In addition, the arguer concludes that if Mayor Durant had approved a wider and better-designed bridge that there would be no damage or traffic problems, an argument for which there is no basis of proof offered. It is a well-known fact that bridges are subject to deterioration, particularly over a period of twenty years, no matter how well designed they may be. The author also fails to offer any supporting evidence to show that a more durable bridge with fewer traffic problems could have been built for approximately the same amount of public money. It seems likely that a wider bridge would have more damage problems rather than fewer, and probably would have cost more as well, whether public or private funds were used.

Furthermore, the arguer mentions that the River Bridge has deteriorated much more rapidly than the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. This groundless argument fails to take into account other possible reasons for the discrepancy in the deterioration of the two bridges such as traffic loads, location and other environmental variables. It is possible that the Derby Bridge was much more protected from the elements and rarely used by heavy truck traffic, for example. The author gives no basis for a direct comparison between the two bridges other than his or her personal opinion.

Finally, the letter writer refers to the "negligence and wastefulness" of Mayor Durant. The only action cited by the author is the approval of the bridge in the first place, which proves neither neglect nor wasting of anything. The sentence itself contains a non sequitur - firstly discussing the severe winters of the past several years, and then accusing Mr. Durant of waste and neglect. This accusation is unwarranted as well as unsupported in the author's argument.

In summary, the author simply makes groundless accusations without providing any real support for his or her argument. To make the argument convincing, the author would have to provide evidence that Mayor Durant approved a faulty bridge design or an unqualified construction company that caused the bridge's damage and traffic problems. The author should have also provided supporting details that show that the damage to the bridge is out of the ordinary and directly caused by Mayor Durant's decision to use inadequate construction materials or a poor design. Without more support, the author's point of view is unconvincing and not well reasoned.
(605 words)

参考译文

[题目]
下述文字乃一封致《Atticus都市报》的信函：
"前市长Durant应向全体Atticus 市民道歉。无论是将Atticus 市和Hartley市连结起来的跨河大桥所遭到的毁坏，还是我们在大桥上长期以来所经历的交通问题，实际上都是由Durant 市长在20年之前一手铸成的。无论如何，是他批准了大桥的开工建设。如果他所批准建设的大桥更宽一些，设计得更精良一些，而所投入其上的公共款项大致相等的话，那么，无论是大桥的受损，还是交通拥堵问题均不会发生。然则，在过去20年期间，跨河大桥现在则远比上游河段上长度远长得多的Derby河大桥更为快速地遭到毁损。尽管过去几年中冬天的日子甚为严酷，但我们绝不能原谅Durant 市长的玩忽职守和浪费。"

[范文正文]

本信函的作者在其论述中得出结论，认为前市长Durant 应向Atticus全市作出正式道歉，因为对于过去20年中跨河大桥所遭受的损坏他应引咎自责。作者亦责怪Durant市长造成了大桥上长期以来的交通问题。作者陈述道，由于Durant市长批准了现在这座大桥的开工建设，而没有批准一座更宽、设计更精良的大桥，故他在20年之前实际上就已铸成了上述这些问题。提出这些论点的作者可以对Durant市长有此个人怨仇，但论述中所陈述的各项内容并不能为这样一种责怪提供依据。

首先，作者斩钉截铁地将罪责归咎于Durant市长，仅仅因为他批准了大桥的建造这一行为本身。但作者没能提供证据证明，仅仅只是批准该座大桥的建造这一行为与大桥本身所遭受的毁坏或大桥上的交通问题有任何必然的联系。完全有可能的是，Durant先生仅仅只是准许了建造这座大桥的想法，而并没有认可该大桥的设计或建造该大桥的承包商。纯粹去批准大桥的建造，这一行为就其本身而言并不会导致大桥受毁或造成任何交通问题。

此外，论述者得出结论，认为如果Durant市长批准建造一座更宽、设计更精良的大桥的话，则既不会发生大桥受损，也不会有交通拥堵的问题。对于该论据，论述者也没有提出任何证明依据。一个众所周知的事实是，所有桥梁的状况都会每况愈下，尤其是经历了20年这样长的时间之后，无论它们当时设计得是如何精良。信函作者也没能提供任何能起到支持作用的证据来证明，人们可以用大致同等数量的公共款项建起一座更为持久的、交通问题更少的大桥。有可能的是，一座桥面更宽的大桥所遭受的损坏可能更多，而非更少。也有可能是，所投入的资金将更大，无论所使用的是公共款项还是私人资金。

再者，论述者提到跨河大桥比上游河段更长的Derby大桥老化的速度来得快。这一毫无根据的论点没能考虑到导致两座大桥老化状况差异的其他有可能的因素，如交通负荷、桥址、以及其他环境方面的变数。例如，Derby大桥受到了更好的保护，受自然因素影响较少，很少有重型卡车类的交通工具通过其上。除了其武断的个人看法以外，信函作者没有拿出任何依据来在两座大桥之间作出直接的比较。

最后，信函作者提及Durant市长的"玩忽职守及浪费"。该作者所援引的有关Durant市长的唯一的所作所为仅是早先时候对大桥建造的批准，而这一点既不能证明任何的玩忽职守，也不能证明任何浪费。该句子本身包含了一个不根据前提的推理--首先讨论过去几年中气候严酷的冬天，紧接着责怪Durant先生的浪费与疏忽。在作者的论述中，这一谴责既无正当理由，也缺乏依据。

概而言之，信函作者所做的只是提出一些毫无根据的责怪，而没有拿出任何真正的依据来证明其论点。要使其论点更具说服力，该作者应拿出证据来证明，Durant市长所批准的是一份有严重失误的大桥建设设计方案，或一个没有资质的建筑公司，从而导致了大桥的受毁和交通问题。该作者也应该提供有支持作用的细节，以表明大桥受损程度超乎寻常，并且是因为Durant市长决定使用劣质建筑材料或采用了一份蹩脚的设计方案而直接造成的。在没有更为充分的依据这一条件下，该作者的论点无法令人置信，并且也显得没有得到充分的论证。

imongUID：140258

Argument153
The following is from an editorial in the Midvale Observer, a local newspaper.
"Ever since the 1950's, when television sets began to appear in the average home, the rate of crimes committed by teenagers in the country of Alta has steadily increased. This increase in teenage crime parallels the increase in violence shown on television. According to several national studies, even very young children who watch a great number of television shows featuring violent scenes display more violent behavior within their home environment than do children who do not watch violent shows. Furthermore, in a survey conducted by the Observer, over 90 percent of the respondents were parents who indicated that prime-time television--programs that are shown between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m.---should show less violence. Therefore, in order to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta, television viewers should demand that television programmers reduce the amount of violence shown during prime time."

Sample Essay

The author of this editorial states that the rate of teenage crime in the country of Alta has increased along with the increase in violence shown on television, beginning with the 1950's when television was introduced in the average home. In addition, the author states that several national surveys have shown that young children watching violent television programs are more prone to violence than children who do not. The write also says that a survey indicated that ninety percent of parents responding said that prime-time programs should show less violence. Finally, the author comes to the conclusion that to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta, television watchers should demand a reduction in violence shown during prime time. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

Firstly, the writer equates the rate of increase in teenage crime in Alta to the increase in violence shown on television but gives no causal linkage other than the similar time periods. The author makes no distinction between types of crimes - whether they are violent or nonviolent crimes by teenagers. Furthermore, there are several possible alternative causes for the increase in teen crimes. For example, perhaps all types of crimes have increased for all ages, or maybe the police are now doing a better job of catching teenage criminals than they were before. Perhaps the reason for the increase is simply an increase in the overall population and that as a percentage of the population, teen crime is even less than it was before. Without ruling out these and other causes, the argument fails to convince by showing no causal linkage between television violence and teenage crime.

Secondly, the author mentions national studies that show that young children that watch violent programs show more violent behavior at home than children who do not watch such programs. This argument fails on two levels - one by assuming that children and teenagers are equally affected by television programs; and two by again assuming that there is some type of cause and effect relationship between television violence and teenage crime. Young children and teenagers are not the same and it should not be assumed that more violent behavior within the home leads to crimes outside as these children grow into teenagers.

Thirdly, the author offers a survey showing that ninety percent of the respondents were parents who indicated that prime time television programs should show less violence. The survey methods are not discussed - it is possible that the sample was improperly chosen or somehow predisposed to include parents that are very much opposed to television violence. Additionally, it is possible that such parents are far more vocal in their opinions than those who care little or not at all about prime time television violence, again skewing the results of the survey. Even assuming the veracity of the sample population surveyed, it is not logical to associate television violence with teen crime solely on that basis.

Finally, the author makes the gratuitous assumption that simply having television viewers demand that television programmers reduce the amount of violence during prime time will lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta. Regardless of the flawed arguments previously discussed, simply demanding a change will have no effect whatsoever on teen crime. To strengthen his or her argument, the author needs to show some direct causal linkage between television violence and teen crime rather than making vague and unsupported comparisons purporting to show a link. There is no proof given either that television violence of any kind causes teenage crime or that a reduction in prime time violence will keep teenagers from breaking the law.
(602 words)

参考译文

［题目］
下述文字摘自一份地方性报纸《Midvale观察家》所发表的社论。
"自二十世纪五十年代以来，当电视机开始出现于寻常百姓家庭时，Alta国内青少年犯罪率已呈现出持续上升的势头。这一青少年犯罪行为的上升与电视上所播放的暴力画面的增加成正比。按照几份全国性调查报告，在那些大量观看了涉及到暴力场面的电视节目的青少年中，即使是极为年幼的孩童在其家庭环境中也要比那些不看暴力节目的孩童表现出更多的暴力行为。此外，在一项由《Midvale观察家》所进行的调查中，有90%的受访者为父母亲，他(她)们表示黄金时段的电视内容--即晚上7点到9点所播放的节目--应该减少播放暴力内容。据此，为了降低Alta国内青少年犯罪率，电视观众应该要求电视节目编播者减少黄金时段所播放的暴力画面数量。"

[范文正文]

本社论作者陈述道，Alta国内青少年犯罪率伴随着电视所播放的暴力场面的增加而上升。这一情形始于二十世纪五十年代，因为电视在当时被引入到普通百姓的家庭。此外，该作者陈述道，几项全国性调查显示，观看暴力电视节目的孩子比那些不看同类节目的孩子更易于形成暴力倾向。社论作者还指出，一份调查表明，受访的90%的父母亲认为，黄金时段的电视节目不应含有那么多的暴力场面。最后，作者得出结论，认为要想降低Alta国内的青少年犯罪率，电视观众应要求减少黄金时段所播放的暴力画面。这一论述犯有若干关键性的逻辑谬误。

首先，社论作者将Alta国内青少年犯罪率的上升与电视所播放的暴力场面的增加相提并论，但除了二者在时间上吻合以外，没能给出任何因果关系。该作者没有对不同的犯罪种类作出区分--青少年所犯的罪行是属于暴力型的还是非暴力型的。此外，对于青少年犯罪数量的增加，还存在着其他一些有可能的原因。例如，或许所有年龄段的所有类型的犯罪行为都呈上升态势，或者也有可能，警察现在要比过去更擅长于抓捕青少年犯罪者了。更有可能的是，犯罪上升的原因仅仅只是人口总量的上升所致，并且，作为人口总量中的一个比例，青少年犯罪现在甚至低于以前的程度。如不排除掉这些以及其他的原因，社论中的论点便无法令人信服，因为作者没有在电视暴力和青少年犯罪之间建立起任何因果关系。

其次，社论作者提到，有几份全国性研究表明，观看暴力节目的孩童在家里比不看此类节目的孩童表现出了更多的暴力行为。这一论点在二个层面上显得站不住脚--首先是假设孩童和青少年受到电视节目同等程度的影响；第二是又一次假定在电视暴力与青少年犯罪之间存在着某种因果关系。孩童与青少年毕竟并不相同，我们不能做这样的假定，即家庭中较为暴力的那些行为必然会随着这些孩子长大成为青少年而发展成为犯罪行为。

第三，社论作者给出一项调查，以期证明90%的回答问卷的受访者均为父母亲一类的人，他(她)们提出黄金时段的电视节目不应该播放如此多的暴力镜头。但社论中没有讨论该调查所使用的调查方法是什么。情况有可能是，该调查的样本选择得并不恰当，或在某种程度上侧重于只将那些对电视暴力甚感厌恶的父母亲囊括于样本之中。再则，情况也可能是，这些父母亲在表达其意见时要比那些对黄金时段电视暴力漠不关心或满不在乎的人来得语气强烈得多，这样便再度使调查结果失之偏颇。即使我们假定所调查的人口样本是真实的，仅仅以此为依据将电视暴力和青少年犯罪联系起来也是不合逻辑的。 最后，社论作者作出一不必要的假设，即只要有电视观众要求电视节目编播者减少黄金时段暴力内容的播放量便可降低Alta国内的青少年犯罪率。即使不考虑此前已讨论过的那些含有缺陷的论点，只是去要求作出某种改变并不会对青少年犯罪产生任何影响。若要增强其论点的逻辑性，社论作者必须在电视暴力与青少年犯罪之间表明某种直接的因果关系，而不是作出某些含糊其辞的和缺乏依据的比较，声称存在着某种联系。该作者既没有拿出证据证明任何种类的电视暴力导致了青少年的犯罪，也没能证明黄金时段电视暴力的减少将会防范青少年的违法乱纪行为。

imongUID：140258

Argument154
The following appeared in the editorial section of a health and fitness magazine.
"In a study of the effects of exercise on longevity, medical researchers tracked 500 middle-aged men over a 20-year period. The subjects represented a variety of occupations in several different parts of the country and responded to an annual survey in which they were asked: How often and how strenuously do you exercise? Of those who responded, the men who reported that they engaged in vigorous outdoor exercise nearly every day lived longer than the men who reported that they exercised mildly only once or twice a week. Given the clear link that this study establishes between longevity and exercise, doctors should not recommend moderate exercise to their patients but should instead encourage vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis."

Sample Essay

It is natural to assume that exercise would have a positive effect on the length of life for middle-aged men given all of the medical literature that has been published in the past showing a positive correlation between exercise and longevity. In this particular argument, the writer puts forth a study purporting to track five hundred middle-aged men with different occupations in different parts of the country. The survey was apparently conducted on the basis of an annual survey asking how often and how strenuously these men exercised. The writer not only concludes that there is a clear link between longevity and exercise, but that doctors should not recommend moderate exercise, rather vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis to all their patients. This writer's argument fails to convince in a number of areas due to several lapses in logical thinking.

The first and most glaring error in logic lies in the fact that the results of only two types of exercising men are reported: those that exercise strenuously outdoors almost every day and those that only had mild exercise once or twice per week. There are no other results mentioned from the survey, such as the results of men who exercise vigorously indoors every day, or those that exercise moderately either indoors or outdoors three or four times per week. Additionally, it is likely that those men that are exercising outdoors vigorously and almost every day are already in better health than those men that only exercise mildly once or twice per week. Unhealthy men, either due to obesity, smoking or other health-related problems, would naturally be expected to exercise less and die sooner than those apparently healthy men who are physically able to exercise strenuously every day.

Furthermore, the writer indicates that the survey looked at men in different parts of the country with a variety of occupations. It would follow that men that can exercise vigorously outdoors almost every day must live in more favorable climates for such exercise. Milder weather that permits outdoor exercise would likely be healthier for any men rather than the harsher climates that may be present in other parts of the country. In addition, some occupations such as a policeman, firefighter or steelworker are naturally more dangerous than others, leading to a possibly reduced life span. The writer fails to take into account any possible disparity in longevity that may be caused by climatic differences where the men lived or due to their occupations, thus weakening the argument and its conclusion.

Finally, the argument suffers from a critical flaw in its conclusion when the writer states that doctors should not recommend moderate exercise for their patients, instead stating that they should only encourage vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis. This conclusion is supported by absolutely no evidence in the argument - indeed moderate exercise is not even mentioned until the end of the editorial. Additionally, the argument fails to take into account that the study only addresses men, not women or children that are also doctors' patients. Furthermore, for some men, women or children, outdoor vigorous exercise on a daily basis might actually be detrimental to their health, such as those at risk for a heart attack or living in harsh climates.

In summary, the writer fails to show that doctors should recommend vigorous daily outdoor exercise rather than moderate exercise whether it is for men, women or children. To strengthen the argument, evidence should be presented that directly links strenuous outdoor exercise on a daily basis for men as well as all doctors' patients before any such recommendation should be adopted. This weak argument might actually cause more damage to patients' health than it would prevent.
(615 words)

参考译文

[题目]
下述文字刊登于某健康与健美杂志的社论栏：
"在一项有关运动对长寿的影响的研究中，医疗研究人员在为期20年的时间中跟踪调查了500名中年男性。被调查对象代表着该国若干个不同地区的形形色色的职业，他们对每年度调查中的二个问题--你运动的频繁程度如何？运动的力度如何？--作出回答。在所有作出回答的人中间，那些汇报说几乎每天都从事剧烈户外运动的男性，其寿命要高于那些汇报说每周只从事一次或二次轻微运动的男性。鉴于本项研究在长寿与运动之间所确立的明显关系，大夫们不应向其病人建议适度的运动，而应该鼓励病人每天从事剧烈的户外活动。"

[范文正文]

鉴于过去所出版的医学文献均表明，在运动和长寿之间存在着一种积极的关系，人们自然会认为运动会对中年男性的寿命产生一种极积的影响。在这段特定的论述中，作者引用一份研究，声称该研究对500名本国不同地区从事不同职业的男性进行了跟踪调查。这份研究显然每年进行一次问卷调查，询问这些男性从事运动的频繁程度以及力度如何。该作者不仅得出结论，认为长寿和运动之间存在着明显的联系，而且也认为大夫不应该向病人推荐适度的运动，而应该鼓励所有的病人每天都应进行剧烈的户外运动。鉴于其逻辑思维中的若干差错，该作者的论述在诸多方面无法令人信服。 逻辑推理中第一个也是最彰著的谬误在于这样一个事实，即研究仅报告了从事运动的二类男性的结果，第一类为几乎每天都要去户外做剧烈运动的男性，第二类为一星期只进行一至二次适度运动的男性。该调查中的其他结果均未提及，诸如每天在室内进行剧烈运动的男性的结果，或者那些每周三至四次在室内或在室外进行运动的男性的结果。此外，那些在室外作剧烈运动且几乎每天都进行运动的男性，可能比那些仅每周作一至二次适度运动的人早就处在更佳的身体状况之中。身体不够健康的男性，或因为肥胖，或因为抽烟，或因为其他与健康相关的问题，自然不被期望去作那么多的运动，否则，与那些显然是身体健康的、拥有每天进行剧烈运动体能的男性相比，他们可能会死得更早。 另一方面，该作者表示，此项调查所研究的男性分布在该国不同的地区，从事着不尽相同的职业。我们自然会得出这样的结论，即那些能够在户外几乎每天都从事剧烈运动的男性，他们必定生活在较适宜于这类运动的气候之中。允许户外运动的较为温和的气候无疑要比存在于该国其他地区较为恶劣的气候对任何人的身体更为有利。除此之外，诸如警察、消防员以及钢铁工人这些职业，自然要比其他类别的职业更加危险，从而导致一个人的寿命可能缩短。该作者没能考虑到任何有可能由人们所在地区的气候差异或其职业差异所致的寿命长短方面的差别，从而削弱了其论据及其结论。 最后，当作者作出这样的陈述，即大夫不应该向其病人建议适度的运动，而只应该鼓励每日进行户外剧烈的运动时，其论述的结论中便产生了一个关键性的缺陷。所得出的结论在论述中绝对找不到任何可资佐证的依据--甚至，只是直到社论结束之处才提及适度的运动。此外，此项论述没能注意到所作的研究仅涉及男性，而非涉及同样也作为大夫病人的女性和儿童。再者，对于某些男性、女性、及儿童而言，每天的户外剧烈运动实际上反而会危害他们的健康，尤其是对于那些有心脏病危险或生活在恶劣气候中的人们来说。 归纳而言，本社论作者没能证明大夫们为什么就应该推荐剧烈的每日户外运动，而不是适度的运动，无论病人是男性、女性、还是孩子。若需要强化其论点，作者应摆出证据，将男性每日剧烈的户外运动和所有大夫的病人的运动直接联系起来，然后才采纳任何这样的建议。这一薄弱的论据实际上有可能引起的对病人健康的伤害，会远超过它所可能防范的伤害。

imongUID：140258

Argument155
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.
"Too much emphasis is placed on the development of reading skills in elementary school. Many students who are discouraged by the lonely activity of reading turn away from schoolwork merely because they are poor readers. But books recorded on audiocassette tape provide an important alternative for students at this crucial stage in their education, one the school board should not reject merely because of the expense involved. After all, many studies attest to the value of allowing students to hear books read aloud; there is even evidence that students whose parents read to them are even more likely to become able readers. Thus, hearing books on tape can only make students more eager to read and to learn. Therefore, the school board should encourage schools to buy books on tape and to use them in elementary education."

In this argument, the writer claims that elementary schools place too much emphasis on the development of reading skills; therefore books on audiocassette should be provided as an alternative method of learning. The arguer attempts to substantiate the conclusion by citing studies that show the value of allowing students to hear books read aloud; including evidence that students whose parents read to them are even more likely to become better readers. This argument ultimately fails as it suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the writer flatly states, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, that many students are discouraged by the "lonely" activity of reading, then continues on in the same sentence to state that students turn away from schoolwork solely because they are poor readers. Students often read to themselves or to the other students in a classroom situation - hardly a lonely activity. Additionally, this argument puts the effect before the cause - inviting the circular logic that students stop trying to learn to read because they are poor readers. Following this argument to its logical conclusion, because they are poor readers, they should not try to learn how to improve their reading. This absurd argument is analogous to saying that a new student should never start to learn in the first place, because he or she knows nothing.

Secondly, the writer cites as evidence in favor of the use of audiocassettes the idea that students whose parents read to them are even more likely to become proficient readers. It is at best doubtful that this provides proof that listening to someone read a book stimulates a young mind to learn to read better. It is far more likely that the child gains an interest in learning to read from the parents themselves, not the physical act of having something read to them. In this situation, the parent is showing the child his or her ability to read, which the child will naturally want to emulate. Furthermore, it is likely that a parent that spends time reading to a child is likely to be a much more encouraging parent, particularly when it comes to that child's education.

Thirdly, the writer fails to convince in his argument that hearing books on audiocassette makes a child more eager to read and to learn. The author cites many studies that show value in allowing students to hear books read aloud - he or she does not state that the studies show whether that value manifests itself as better reading skills or simply better listening skills, which seems more likely than any improvement in reading ability.

Finally, the author fails to take into consideration that merely listening to books on audiocassette fails to provide the visual stimulation necessary to develop higher level reading skills. It is more likely that hearing a book on audiocassette would discourage that student from ever reading that particular book on his or her own. Elementary schools are the main developing grounds for a student's reading abilities- there is no substitute for actively learning to actually see the writing and comprehend what it is trying to say. Listening skills can be developed through means other than by hearing books on audiocassette. Reading skills are an absolutely irreplaceable and fundamental part of an elementary student's education.

In conclusion, the writer's argument fails to address several weak areas that lead to a rejection of the overall conclusion that the school board should encourage schools to buy books on tape for use in elementary education. To strengthen the argument, direct cause and effect evidence should be set forth that shows better overall learning without any loss in the development of higher level reading skills for students.
(612 words)

参考译文

[题目]
下述文字摘自一封致某地方报纸编辑的信函：
"在小学里，人们对阅读技能的培养强调得过分了。许多对孤独的阅读活动望而却步的学生无心专注于学业，仅仅是因为他们阅读能力薄弱。但是，录制在盒式录音磁带上的书本内容却可以向学生在其教育中如此关键的这一阶段提供另外一个重要的选择方案。对于这一方案，校董事会不能纯粹因为所涉及到的费用而予以摈弃。不管怎么说，许多研究均可验证让学生聆听大声朗诵书本内容这一做法的价值。甚至还不乏这样的证据，即有些学生，由于其父母将书本内容朗读给他们听，就更有可能成为阅读能力很强的人。因此，在盒式录音磁带上听书本内容只会使学生更迫切地去阅读和学习。故校董事会应该鼓励学校去购置磁带书本，并将其应用于小学教学之中。"

[范文正文]

在本段论述中，作者宣称小学过分强调对学生阅读能力的培养；因此，录制在盒式录音磁带上的书本内容应提供给学生，作为又一种可选择的学习方法。论述者通过援引某些研究，力图来证明自己的结论，所援引的研究表明，让学生聆听书本内容被大声朗读这一做法不无价值。论述者还提供了这样的证据，即有些学生，由于其父母亲将书本内容朗读给他们听，就较有可能成为阅读能力很强的人。该论点由于存在着某些严重的逻辑谬误而最终无法站得住脚。 首先，作者言之凿凿地、且在毫无任何佐证性证据的情况下陈述道，许多学生对"孤独的"阅读行为望而却步，接着在同一个句子中继续陈述道，学生会仅仅因为阅读能力差而无心投入到学业之中。学生常常会在课堂氛围中自己默读或者朗读给其他学生听，这就很难将阅读说成是一种"孤独的"活动。此外，该论点将因果倒置--诉诸于循环论证式逻辑推理 --学生们因为阅读技能差而不愿努力去学习阅读。按此论据得出的逻辑结论便是：因为他们阅读能力差，他们就不必作任何努力去学习如何来提高其阅读能力。这一荒谬的论述仿佛就像是在说，一个新生永远没有必要开始学习任何东西，因为这位新生一无所知。

其次，作者援引了某一理念作为证据，用来为盒式录音磁带的使用进行辩护，这一理念便是，当一个学生有父母对他进行朗读时，他便更有可能成为一个精于阅读的人。如果将这视为证据，说明听他人朗读一本书便能刺激一颗年幼的心灵去学习如何具有更强的阅读能力，这充其量也是十分令人怀疑的。更有可能的是，孩子从父母身上所获得的是一种去学习阅读的兴趣，而非由他人对他们进行朗读这一具体行为本身。在此情形中，父母所做的是向孩子表明他或她的阅读能力，孩子自然愿意模仿这一能力。再者，一位花时间来给孩子进行朗读的父亲或母亲更有可能是一个教子有方的人，尤其是在涉及到孩子教育这一方面。

第三，作者在其论述中没能让我们相信在盒式录音磁带上听书能使孩子更加渴望去阅读和学习。作者援引了多项研究，以期证明让学生听人大声朗读书本这一做法的价值。但这位作者并没能说清楚，这些研究所表明的价值是否呈现为更强的阅读技能，或者只是呈现为更强的听力技能，而这一技能似乎比任何阅读能力方面的提高来得更有可能。

最后需要指出的是，作者没有考虑到这样一个因素，即纯粹在盒式录音带上听书是无法提供培养较高层次阅读技能所必需的视觉刺激的。情况更有可能是，在盒式录音带上听某一本书会打消该学生自己去阅读那本特定的书的积极性。小学教育是发展孩子阅读能力的主要阶段，没有任何东西可以来替代积极的学习行为，亲眼去看所写的内容并去理解字里行间所要表达的内容。要发展听力技能，并不必定需要借助在盒式录音带上听书这一手段。阅读技能是小学生教育中绝对无可替代的和最基本的部分。

归纳而言，作者的论述没有能解决某些薄弱之处，正是这些没能纠正的薄弱之处，使学校董事会应该鼓励学校去购买磁带书本用于小学教育这一总体结论无法得以成立。若要使其论据更具充分说服力，必须摆出直接的因果证据来证明，学生在发展较高层次的阅读技能方面在没有蒙受任何损失的情况下，总体学习效果得到了提高。

imongUID：140258

argument158

The Trash-Site Safety Council has recently conducted a statewide study of possible harmful effects of garbage sites on the health of people living near the sites. A total of five sites and 300 people were examined. The study revealed, on average, only a small statistical correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes. Furthermore, although it is true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes, there was otherwise no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. Therefore, the council is pleased to announce that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard. We see no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.

Sample Essay

In this argument, the council comes to the conclusion that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard and that therefore, there is no need to restrict the size of the garbage sites or the number of homes built near the site. To support this conclusion, the council cites a study of five garbage sites and three hundred people that showed only a small correlation between the closeness of the homes to the sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among those people living there. Additionally, the council came to this conclusion despite the fact that people living near the largest such site had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes. This argument suffers from several critical weaknesses in logic and information presented.

First of all, the members of the "Trash-Site Safety Council" are not listed, which could make a big difference in the believability of the study. A truly independent council could produce results that could be considered much more reliable than one with members with possible conflicts of interest. However, if the council were made up mainly of people who have an interest in finding that there is no problem with the trash sites - homebuilders or city councilmen, for example - then the study would lack some credibility. Without knowing the backgrounds and priorities of the council members, the argument is greatly weakened.

Secondly, this was cited as a statewide study, but only five sites and three hundred people were studied. Although on average there was only a small statistical correlation shown between the nearness of the trash sites and the homes and people who lived in them, the margin of error could be quite large due to studying only a small sample of people that live near the trash sites in the state. It would be much more persuasive were a large majority of the homes and people near trash sites studied rather than merely a small percentage.

Furthermore, the study cites only unexplained rashes as a health-related problem with some statistical correlation. The presence or absence of other types of health problems is not mentioned in the study. It could be that there were other, perhaps not immediately noticeable health problems such as cancer affecting the people living near the sites. Additionally, the study appears to cover only one moment in time, or at least the duration of the study is not discussed. Perhaps there are long-term effects that cannot be discovered by a study conducted over a short period of time. This weakens the argument by leaving out information that could help to persuade the reader one way or another.

To add to the lack of credibility, the study does not discuss the relative size of the garbage sites or how close the homes and people were to the sites. There is really no data present to allow a proper decision to be made restricting the size of the sites or how close the homes could be located near the trash sites. At the very least, the fact that there is a slightly higher incidence of rashes in those living nearest the biggest trash sites indicates a need for further studies to prove or disprove the idea that trash sites of a certain size or location are health hazards.

In summary, the findings and conclusions of the Trash-Site Safety Council are based mainly on speculation and a small amount of indicative data. The disclosure of the council members motives, the study of a larger sample of the population and trash sites, and further information on other types of health problems and relative nearness of the homes and people to the trash sites would give a much better argument either for or against restrictions on the such sites.
(640 words)

参考译文

［题目］

垃圾场安全委员会最近在全州范围内进行了一项调查，旨在研究垃圾场对居住在附近的居民的身体有可能产生的有害影响。被调查的有五座垃圾场以及300多位居民。研究表明，平均而言，居所紧挨着垃圾场这一事实与这些居所中所居住人口发生的无法解释的疹子之间，仅存在着一种微弱的数据关系。此外，虽然居住在最大的垃圾场附近的居民发疹的程度略高这一事实属实，但在其他方面，垃圾场的大小与人们的健康之间毫无关系。因此，委员会可以甚为欣慰地宣布，目前这套垃圾场体制并不会对健康构成一项重大危险。我们认为毫无必要去限制本州内这类垃圾场的规模，也没有必要去限制垃圾堆附近所建造的房屋数量。

[范文正文]

在本段论述中，委员会得出结论，认为目前的垃圾场体制并没有对健康构成一种重大危险，因此，毫无必要去限制垃圾场的规模或垃圾场周围的住房数量。为了支持这一结论，委员会援引了针对五所垃圾场和300位居民所作的一项研究，据此证明在住房紧挨着垃圾场与居住在那里的人中间所发生的难以名状的疹子之间仅存微弱的关联。此外，委员会在得出这一结论时，全然无视这样一个事实，即居住在这类最大的垃圾场附件的人发病的机率略高。论述在逻辑思路和呈示的信息方面不乏某些关键性的弱点。

其一，"垃圾场安全委员会"的成员没有被清楚列举出来，这一点可令该研究的可信度产生巨大的差异。一个完全独立的委员会所提出的结论，会被视为比一个成员间可能存在着利害关系冲突的委员会所得出的结论可信度高。但是，如果组成该委员会的成员所感兴趣的仅仅是去揭示出垃圾场不存在问题--例如象房地产开发商或市政厅议员，那么，该项研究会失去某些可信度。如果对委员会成员的背景以及他们所优先考虑的问题一无所知，则本段论述倍遭削弱。

其二，所作的研究据称是涵盖整个州的，但被调查的仅有五座垃圾场和300位居民。尽管平均而论，垃圾场的近距离与住所以及与居住在这些房屋内的人之间存在一丝微弱的联系，但由于所研究的仅是该州内居住在垃圾场附近的很小一批人口样本，故误差程度可能会相当的严重。如果在所有垃圾场附近的人和住所当中，有大部分的居民和住所得以被研究，而不只是一个很小的百分比的话，那么，所作的调查将更具说服力。

此外，该研究仅援引难以名状的疹子作为与健康相关的、带有一定统计学关系的问题。该研究没有提及其他类别的健康问题存在与否。情况有可能是，还存在着其他类型的、或许不是那么昭然若揭的健康问题，例如癌症，正影响着居住在这些垃圾场附近的人们。再有，该研究所涵盖的似乎只是一小段时间，或者至少该研究的时间跨度不曾得到讨论。也许，有些长远影响决非是一份只在短期内进行的研究所能涵盖得了的。这一点再度削弱了本段论述，因为可以使读者信服的信息被疏忽了。 使可信度进一步受损的是，该研究没有讨论各垃圾场的相对规模，也没讨论住房和居民离垃圾场到底有多近。实际上，一点都没有数据来允许人们作出一种恰当的判断，是否应该去限制垃圾场的规模，也没讨论住房与垃圾场之间相隔多远才算安全距离。至少，在那些居住在最靠近最大的垃圾场的人身上疹子的发生率略高这一事实表明，有必要进行更深入的研究，以证明或驳倒某种规模或某种位置的垃圾场会对健康构成危害这一想法。 概括而论，垃圾场安全委员会的研究发现和研究结论所主要依据的是揣测和数量有限的说明数据。如能揭示出委员会成员的动机，研究为数更多的人口和垃圾场样本，就其他类别的健康问题以及住房和居民应与垃圾场之间保持怎样的相对距离提供更进一步的信息的话，那么，作者便能作出更为充分的论述，无论是赞成还是反对对垃圾场实施限制。

imongUID：140258

argument160

As people grow older, an enzyme known as PEP increasingly breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals involved in learning and memory. But now, researchers have found compounds that prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart. In tests, these compounds almost completely restored lost memory in rats. The use of these compounds should be extended to students who have poor memory and difficulty in concentrating-and therefore serious problems in school performance. Science finally has a solution for problems neither parents nor teachers could solve.

In this argument, the arguer states that researchers have found compounds that keep an enzyme known as PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart, which are known to be involved in learning and memory. The arguer states that tests have shown that these compounds almost completely restored lost memory in rats, and that therefore, these compounds should be administered to students with poor memory and difficulty in concentrating. This argument is unconvincing because it contains several critical flaws in logic.

First of all, the arguer states that as people grow older, PEP breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals that are involved in learning and memory. It is true that generally, as people get older, they tend to have more problems with learning and memory. However, there is no direct link mentioned between the breaking down of the neuropeptide chemicals and the loss of learning ability or memory. Additionally, the arguer mentions neuropeptide chemicals that are broken down by PEP. What the researchers have found is a compound that prevents neuropeptides from breaking apart. These are two different physical actions: the breaking down of neuropeptide chemicals as opposed to the breaking apart of the neuropeptides themselves. Furthermore, it is not stated which of these physical actions is involved with the loss of learning ability and memory. It is not explicitly stated that the breaking down of chemicals causes a loss in learning ability and memory, only that this happens as people grow older. It is also not expressly stated whether the breaking apart of the neuropeptides themselves causes memory loss or a lessened learning ability. Without showing a direct link between the effect of keeping the neuropeptides from breaking apart and a reduction in the loss of memory and learning ability, the efficacy of the compounds is called into question.

Secondly and most obviously, the compounds were only tested on rats. Rats may have a similar genetic structure to humans, but they are most certainly not the same as humans. There may be different causes for the learning and memory problems in rats as opposed to that of humans. The effect of the compounds on rats may also be very different from their effect on human beings. It is absurd in the extreme to advocate giving these compounds to students, even assuming that they would help the students with their studies, without conducting further studies assessing the compounds' overall effects on humans. The argument fails on this particular fact if for no other reason.

Additionally, the arguer begins his or her argument by stating that "as people grow older", PEP breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals involved in learning and memory. At the end of the argument, the arguer advocates extending the compounds that prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart to students who have poor memory and difficulty in concentrating. Students are generally young, not older people. There is no evidence presented that shows what actually causes students to have a poor memory or difficulty in concentrating. Indeed, it is more likely that it is extracurricular activities or a lack of sleep that causes such problems in students, not a problem associated with aging. It is highly unlikely that even if the stated compounds could help prevent the memory loss and decreased learning ability associated with aging that it would have any benefits for students.

In summary, the arguer fails to convince with the argument as presented. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must show a direct link between the breaking apart of neuropeptides and loss of memory and learning ability. Additionally, he or she must show that students' poor memory and difficulty in concentrating is a result of the same process, and that the researcher's compounds would have as beneficial an effect on humans as it seems to have on rats.

(633 words)



参考译文


［题目］

随着人们日渐衰老，一种被称为PEP的酶会不断地分解学习与记忆过程中所涉及到的神经肽化学物。但现在，研究人员已发现了可阻止PEP致使神经肽分裂的化合物。在测试中，这些化合物几乎在老鼠身上能完全恢复缺失的记忆。这些化合物的运用应该也推广到记忆力衰弱或专注力有困难的学生身上，不然将会造成学业表现上的严重问题。科学终于解决了那些令家长和老师束手无策的问题。


[范文正文]

在本段论述中，论述者指出，研究人员已发现了某些化合物，可以阻止一种被称为PEP的酶的物质将神经肽予以分解，而神经肽则是学习和记忆过程中所需涉及到的物质。论述者还宣称，检测结果表明，这些化合物几乎完全恢复了老鼠身上缺失的记忆。因此这些化合物应该让那些记忆力差和难于集中注意力的学生服用。这段论述缺乏说服力，因为它包含着某些逻辑推理方面甚为严重的缺陷。

首先，论述者称，随着人们渐趋衰老，PEP 会分解学习和记忆过程中所涉及的神经肽化学物。确实，随人们渐趋衰老，他们往往会在学习和记忆方面遭遇诸多问题。但是，在神经肽化学物的分解以及学习能力与记忆力丧失之间，却没有提到任何直接的联系。除此之外，论述者提及被PEP所分解的几种神经肽化学物。但研究人员所发现的只是一种可阻止神经肽不致于分裂的化合物。这是两种不同性质的物理作用：神经肽化学物的分解有别于神经肽自身的分裂。此外，原论述并未陈述这两种物理作用中的那一种与学习能力和记忆能力的丧失相涉。论述者没有明确陈述化学物的分解导致了学习能力和记忆能力的丧失，而只是陈述这种情形只是随着人们日趋年迈而发生。原论述中也没有确切地陈述神经肽自身的分裂是否会导致记忆缺失或学习能力下降。如果无法在阻止神经肽分裂所能产生的作用与减少记忆能力和学习能力丧失之间证明某种直接的联系，那么，化合物的效用将令人质疑。 第二，也是极为明显地，化合物只是在老鼠身上进行了测试。虽然老鼠与人类具有类似的基因结构，但它们无论如何并不等同于人类。对于学习和记忆问题，老鼠所遇到的原因很可能全然不同于人类所遇到的原因。在没有作进一步的研究来估评化合物对人类所产生的总体效果的情况下，就去提倡将这些化合物供学生服用，甚至假设它们有助于学生提高其学习效果，这实乃荒唐至极。即使不是出于其他原因的话，就这一特定事实本身，该段论述根本就站不住脚。 进一步而言，论述者在其论述的开始陈述道，"随着人们渐趋衰老"，PEP会将学习和记忆过程中所涉及的神经肽化学物进行分解。在论述的结尾之处，论述者倡导将那些可阻止PEP致使神经肽分裂的化合物推广至那些记忆力和专注力差的学生身上。学生普遍而言都是年轻人，而不是老年人。论述者没有拿出任何证据来证明究竟是什么原因实际导至学生们记忆力和专注力下降。较有可能的是，是那些课外活动，或缺少充足的睡眠，导致了学生身上的这些问题。即使所提及的那些化合物真的有助于防止与衰老相关的记忆缺失问题和学习能力下降问题，它们也极不可能也能为学生带来任何的裨益。 总而言之，论述者没能用其提出的论据来说服我们。若要使其论述在逻辑上成立，论述者必须在神经肽的分裂与记忆能力和学习能力的缺失之间证明某种直接的联系。此外，论述者必须证明学生记忆能力差和注意力难以集中均是同一过程造成的，并且研究人员所发现的化合物对人类所产生的效果会对老鼠似乎所产生的效果同样的好

imongUID：140258

argument161

In a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.

This argument is based on two separate surveys of the citizens of Leeville, conducted by the University of Leeville. In the first survey, most respondents said that their preferred reading material was literary classics. A follow-up study by the same researchers found that mystery novels were the most frequently checked out books from each of the public libraries in Leeville. The arguer concludes that the respondents in the first study therefore misrepresented their own reading habits. This argument does not follow the facts and is therefore unconvincing due to several flaws in logic.

First of all, it is possible that none of the citizens who responded to the first survey were participants in the second survey. Statistically speaking, it is entirely possible that the first survey contained a greater majority of literary classics readers than are present in the general population of Leeville. The difference in the first study and the study of the books that were actually checked out from the library may purely be that the respondents had different interests in literature, therefore disallowing the arguer's conclusion that the first group misrepresented its preferred reading material.

Secondly, it is possible that the difference in the survey results could be attributed to the lack of availability of literary classics in the Leeville public libraries. Simply put, the library may have thousands of mystery novels available for checkout but very few literary classics in their collections. Leeville citizens may actually prefer to read literary classics - the public libraries simply may not have them for the citizens to check out and read. Another possibility is that the Leeville public libraries restrict the checkout of literary classics - perhaps treating the books as a type of "reference" material that must be read inside the library and cannot be checked out. Furthermore, it is possible that no matter how many literary classics the Leeville public libraries have, the citizens have read them all in the past, perhaps many times over, and they are therefore not checked out. These possibilities further weaken the argument that the first respondents misrepresented their reading habits.

Thirdly, literary classics are the type of book that people tend to buy for personal collections rather than checking them out of a library. It is a distinct possibility that the citizens of Leeville purchase literary classics to read and then keep in home libraries rather than checking them out of the library. Leeville citizens may prefer to read literary classics and therefore buy them for their own personal collections, thus checking other types of reading materials out of the library rather than buying them to own forever. The arguer's conclusion that the first set of respondents misrepresented their reading habits is critically weakened by this possibility.

Finally, this argument does not account for the possibility that the survey samples themselves were flawed. There is no indication given about how many people were surveyed, the demographics involved, or the specific locations involved. For example, richer people would tend not to visit public libraries but they are possibly more predisposed to reading literary classics. Similarly, people who visit public libraries may be more predisposed to reading mystery novels than literary classics. Without knowing the relationship between those first surveyed and those who visit the public libraries, it is not possible to draw a proper conclusion about the accuracy of the first group's statements.

In summary, the arguer fails to convince by jumping to a conclusion that fails to hold up to analysis. To strengthen the argument, the arguer needs to find further research that eliminates these other possibilities that preclude the judgment that the first group of respondents misrepresented their reading habits.
(614 words)

参考译文

［题目］
"在一项由Leeville大学就Leeville市民阅读习惯所作的研究中，大多数受访对象称,他们偏爱将文学名著作为其阅读材料。但是，由相同的研究人员所作的一项跟踪调查却发现，每个公共图书馆外借得最频繁的图书均为志怪小说类。因此，我们可以得出这样的结论，即第一项研究中的受访对象没能如实地描述出他们的阅读习惯。"

[范文正文]

上述论断基于由Leeville大学对Leeville市民所从事的两项互为独立的调查。在前一项调查中，大多数受访对象称他们较为偏爱的阅读材料是文学名著。由相同的研究人员所作的一项跟踪调查则发现，志怪小说是Leeville市每个公共图书馆外借频率最高的一类图书。论述者便据此得出结论认为，这样看来，第一项研究中的受访对象没能如实地描述他们自己的阅读习惯。这段论述没能遵循事实，因而由于逻辑方面某些缺陷而无从令人置信。

首先，有可能是，对第一项调查作出问卷回答的公民，没有一个人参加了第二项调查。从统计角度而言，完全有可能的情形是，第一项调查涵盖了一个比Leeville总人口中所存在的来得更大的文学名著多数读者群。第一项研究与其后对图书馆实际外借的书所作的那项研究，二者间的差异可能纯粹是因为受访对象对文学拥有全然不同的兴趣，因此否定了论述者所谓第一组受访对象没有如实表述其所喜爱的阅读材料的结论。

其次，两项调查结果之间的差异或许可以归诸于这样一个原因，即Leeville市的公共图书馆内缺乏文学名著。说得简单一点，图书馆可能有数千册志怪小说供外借但却没能收藏多少册文学名著。Leeville市民实际上可能甚是偏爱阅读文学名著，但公共图书馆就是没有此类图书外借供市民阅读。另一个可能性是，Leeville公共图书馆限制文学名著的外借--可能只将这类图书当作"参考"资料，只允许在馆内阅读，不得外借。进一步而言，也有可能是，无论Leeville公共图书馆藏有多少册文学名著，市民们在过去已将它们悉数读完，甚至读过许多遍，因此，这些书便不再有人借阅。这些可能性也进一步削弱了第一组受访对象没有如实表述其阅读习惯的论点。

第三，对于文学名著这类书，人们往往购买来作为个人藏书，而不太倾向于从图书馆借阅。一个显著的可能性是，Leeville市民购买文学名著来阅读并随后将它们收藏于家庭图书馆而不再去公共图书馆借阅。Leeville市民可能喜爱阅读文学名著并因此购置它们作为个人藏书，因此只从图书馆借阅其他类型的阅读材料，而不是去购买这些材料来永久地拥有。论述者关于第一组受访对象没有如实表述其阅读习惯的结论，由于这一可能性而遭到致命的削弱。

最后，这段论述没有解释这样一种可能性，即调查样本本身带有缺陷。论述者没有摆出任何资料表明到底有多少市民接受了调查，或所涉及的人口统计学方法是什么，或所涉及的具体地点。例如，较富有的人往往不太会光顾公共图书馆，但他们可能更喜爱阅读文学名著。同样地，光顾公共图书馆的人可能更喜爱阅读志怪小说而不爱读文学名著。如果不知道第一组受访群体与光顾公共图书馆的群体之间的关系，就不可能就第一组群体的人的陈述的精确性得出一个恰当的结论。

总而言之，论述者没有能说服我们，因为他（她）过于匆促地得出的结论无法经得住推敲。若要使其论点更具分量，论述者需要寻找出进一步的研究，排除掉其他那些会否定掉第一组受访对象没能如实地表述其阅读习惯这一判断的可能性。

imongUID：140258

Argument162

A recent study shows that people living on the continent of North America suffer 9 times more chronic fatigue and 31 times more chronic depression than do people living on the continent of Asia. Interestingly, Asians, on average, eat 20 grams of soy per day, whereas North Americans eat virtually none. It turns out that soy contains phytochemicals called isoflavones, which have been found to possess disease-preventing properties. Thus, North Americans should consider eating soy on a regular basis as a way of preventing fatigue and depression.

In this argument, the arguer cites a study showing that North Americans suffer from an amazingly higher rate of chronic fatigue and chronic depression than people living in Asia. From an unknown source, the arguer states that Asians eat much more soy than North Americans, who eat almost none, and that soy contains disease-preventing properties. The arguer then concludes his or her argument by stating that North Americans should consider regularly eating soy as a means of battling fatigue and depression. This argument suffers from at least four critical fallacies.

For the sake of this argument, we will assume that the studies and the statistics about North Americans' and Asians' soy eating habits are correct, and that isoflavones have been found to have disease-fighting properties. Given that, there is still a problem with the arguer directly correlating the eating of soy with the prevention of disease and depression. First of all, simply because soy may have disease-preventing properties, that does not mean that it can therefore fight chronic fatigue and chronic depression. Fatigue and depression may not actually even be considered as "diseases", therefore even given the fact that soy has disease-fighting properties, it would have no effect on the "nondiseases" of fatigue and depression. Secondly, even assuming that fatigue and depression are diseases, they are not specifically mentioned as diseases that soy or isoflavones are able to prevent. Perhaps soy can help prevent osteoporosis (bone loss), mumps or even chicken pox, but that does not mean that it can specifically address the problems of chronic fatigue and chronic depression. These two critical weaknesses alone make the argument unconvincing.

Furthermore, the arguer's conclusion is based on the idea that diet alone can prevent fatigue and depression by comparing the diets of North Americans and Asians. It is highly unlikely that diet alone is responsible for the tremendous difference in the rates of fatigue and depression between the two populations. Other factors such as lifestyles, occupations, residence in city or rural areas and levels of stress may play a much bigger factor than diet. Additionally, the arguer states that soy contains phytochemicals called isoflavones, which supposedly have disease-preventing properties. What is not stated, however, is whether these isoflavones are contained in a form in soy that is usable by the human body. It is possible that the particular configuration of the phytochemicals found in soy products is not usable by the human body, thereby producing no beneficial effects by people eating more soy products. In and of themselves, isoflavones may prevent certain diseases, but perhaps those found in soy are of no benefit to humans. By failing to address these possibilities, the arguer has presented an unconvincing argument.

In summary, the argument fails due to four major flaws in logic. First, "disease-preventing" properties does not mean "fatigue and depression" preventing properties. Secondly, fatigue and depression may not even be considered as diseases. Thirdly, the arguer ignores the probability that diet alone is not the sole reason behind the increased rates of fatigue and depression for North Americans as opposed to Asians. Finally, isoflavones as found in soy may not produce the same beneficial effects as when it is found in other forms. To strengthen the argument and conclusion, the arguer should present evidence that directly links diet to fatigue and depression as well as evidence that shows that soy can specifically prevent chronic fatigue and chronic depression in North Americans.
(576 words)

参考译文

[题目]

一项最近的研究表明，居住在北美大陆上的人们要比居住在亚洲大陆上的人们患慢性疲倦和慢性忧郁症的比例分别超出9倍和31倍。有意思的是，亚洲人平均每天只吃20克的大豆，而北美洲人却几乎一点都不吃。研究表明，大豆含有被称为异黄酮的植物化学物，这些植物化学物经科学家研究，发现拥有防病特性。因此，北美洲人应该考虑经常性地吃大豆，以此作为一种防止疲劳和压抑的方法。　

[范文正文]

在本段论述中，论述者援引了一项研究来证明，北美洲人患慢性疲倦和慢性忧郁症的比例要比居住在亚洲的人令人惊讶地高。从一项来源不明的资料中，作者陈述道，亚洲人所吃的大豆要远多于北美人，而北美人则几乎一点都不吃，而大豆却含有防病的特性。论述者在其论述的结束处陈述首，北美人应考虑经常性地吃些大豆，以此作为一种抗疲劳和抗忧郁的方法。本段论述至少犯下了四个关键性的逻辑谬误。

为了论述的缘故，我们假定关于北美人和亚洲人吃大豆的习惯这方面的研究和数据是完全正确的，并且异黄酮确实被科学家发现具有防病功效。即使在承认这些条件的情况下，论述者将食用大豆与防止疾病和抵抗忧郁直接联系起来，这一做法本身仍存在着问题。首先，即使大豆有可能具备防病特性，但这并非意味着它因此就能抵抗慢性疲倦和慢性忧郁症。疲倦和忧郁实际上甚至还不可能被视作"疾病"，因此，尽管大豆具有防病作用属实，但它对于疲倦和忧郁这些"非疾病"可能毫无作用。其次，即使我们假定疲倦和忧郁可被视为疾病，但它们没有被具体提到是属于大豆或异黄酮所能预防的那类病症。或许，大豆可以预防骨质疏松症，流行性腮腺炎或甚至是水痘，但这并非意味着它能具体地治疗慢性疲倦和慢性忧郁症这样一些问题。这二个关键性的弱点本身就足以使得该论述缺乏可信度。

进而言之，论述者的结论所依据的是这样一个理念，即通过比较北美人和亚洲人的饮食，饮食本身可以来防止疲倦和忧郁。但很难想象饮食本身造成了两类人口之间患上疲倦和忧郁症比例方面的巨大差异。其他诸多因素，如生活方式，职业，居住在都市还是乡村，以及压力程度所产生的影响可能要比饮食大得多。此外，论述者陈述道，大豆含有一种可被称为异黄酮的植物化学物，据称具有防病功效。但论述者没有作出陈述，即这些异黄酮是否是以一种被人体使用的方式被包含在大豆中。有可能是，大豆产品中所发现的植物化学物，其特定的结构并不能为人体所利用，从而对食用较多大豆产品的人并不能产生任何益处。就其本身而言，异黄酮或许可能预防某些疾病，但大豆中所发现的异黄酮对人类毫无益处，这也是有可能的。由于没有探究这些可能性，论述者所摆出的这段论述便失去了说服力。

总的说来，本段论述因为四大逻辑缺陷而难以站得住脚。首先，"防病"特性并不能等同于"疲倦和忧郁症"预防特性。其次，疲倦和忧郁甚至还不能被视为疾病。第三，论述者忽视了这样一种可能性，即饮食本身并不是造成北美人相对于亚洲人疲倦与忧郁症比例上升的唯一原因。最后，大豆中所被发现的异黄酮可能并不能产生与在其他形式中所发现的异黄酮相同的益处。若要增强其论点和结论的力度，论述者应该拿出证据，将饮食与疲倦及忧郁直接联系起来，且提供证据来证明大豆能具体地防止北美人的慢性疲倦和慢性忧郁症。

imongUID：140258

argument163

The following is taken from the editorial section of the local newspaper in Rockingham.

"In order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. The old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town. In addition, it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter and cool it in summer. The new, larger building would be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall. Furthermore, it would be possible to rent out some of the space in the new building, thereby generating income for the town of Rockingham."


In this argument, the author of the editorial states that a century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by a larger, more energy-efficient building. As reasons for the destruction of the old building, the author states that it is too small for the number of town employees, and that it is very costly to heat during the winter and cool during the summer. Finally, the author states that the town could receive income from the new building by renting out some space in the newly constructed building. This argument fails because it is based on mere speculation and opinion and a "zero-sum" game of win or lose.

To begin with, the author mentions energy efficiency and the differences in the costs of heating and cooling the two buildings as the main basis for destroying the old building and constructing a larger one. Certainly it is possible to build a more energy-efficient new building - energy-saving technology in buildings has advanced dramatically over the past one hundred years. However, what the author fails to address is the fact that the old building could be remodeled or renovated to be made more energy efficient, perhaps equal to that or superior to any new building that could be constructed at a reasonable expense. The author also mentions that the old building is too small to comfortably handle the town's employees. Again, the old building could be remodeled or perhaps expanded to be able to accommodate more employees. For that matter, perhaps the town has too many employees and needs to consider downsizing. By failing to address these possibilities, the author's argument is greatly weakened.

Furthermore, there are other options that the author has failed to discuss in his or her argument. Rather than destroying the old building, another new building could be constructed to supplement the old town hall, which could still be renovated to become more energy-efficient. This would be a "win - win" situation where the townspeople get to keep the old building but gain a new building as well. Additionally, the author mentions the possibility of renting out space in the new building to earn income for the town, which would seem to indicate that he or she advocates constructing the building to a larger size than what the town actually needs for its current purposes. A careful cost/benefit analysis would need to be performed to determine whether the extra income created would cover the costs of constructing a larger building before simply stating that it would be a moneymaker for Rockingham.

Finally, the author ignores the aesthetic and historic cultural value of a century old building to the town of Rockingham. The author states that some citizens have proposed a new energy efficient building but fails to mention whether they also advocate the tearing down of the old building. When discussing the "considerable amount of money" that Rockingham can save, the author should take into consideration the value that a traditional old town hall can bring to a community, whether in monetary or sense-of-community terms.

In summary, the author fails to convince with this argument by failing to consider other possible options that could both address the current problems with the old building while still allowing the community to keep it. To strengthen the argument, the author should have presented a cost/benefit analysis that analyzes the relative costs of his or her proposed plan as compared to other options such as renovating the old building or constructing a smaller supplemental building. Without such an analysis, the author is merely stating an unconvincing opinion.

(600 words)

参考译文


[题目]

下述文字摘自Rockingham地方报纸的社论部分。

"为了节省相当可观的一部分费用，Rockingham市一个多世纪古老的市政厅应予拆毁，代之以某些市民所倡议的更宽敞的、更节约能源的一幢大楼。旧市政厅规模太小，无法舒适地容纳市政府所雇用的全部员工。此外，旧市政厅夏季降温和冬季供热的成本极为昂贵。更为宽敞的新大楼将更为节约能源，与旧大厅相比，每平方英尺降温和加热的成本较低。此外，新大楼内的一部分空间还可以出租，从而给Rockingham镇带来收益。"


[ 范文正文]

在本项论述中，本社论作者宣称，一个多世纪古老的市政厅应予拆除，代之以一座更为宽敞、更为节省能源的大楼。作为拆毁旧大楼的原因，作者宣称旧大楼过于拥挤，无法容纳市政府雇员，并且，此大楼冬季加热和夏季降温的成本极为昂贵。最后，作者宣称，市政府还可以通过将新建大楼的某些空间出租从而从新大楼那里获取收益。本论点无法站得住脚，因为它基于纯粹的臆测和个人看法，以及一种"得失所系"的输赢游戏。

首先，作者提及能源的节省，以及两幢大楼降温和供热方面的差异，作为拆毁旧大楼和建造更为宽敞的大楼的主要依据。当然，新造的大楼完全有可能来得更加节约能源--建筑物的节能技术在过去一百年中已获得了长足的进步。然而，作者却没能探讨这样一个事实，即旧大楼是可以进行改建或翻新，以便使其更加节约能源，其节能效果或许会与任何一座花合理费用建造起来的新大楼的节能效果同样的好，或甚至更好。作者同样也提到旧大楼规模过小，无法舒适地容纳全体市政府雇员。再一次地，对旧大楼可以进行改建或扩建，以便能容纳更多的雇员。在这一点上，市政府可能雇佣的员工为数过多，需要考虑精简机构。由于没能探讨这些可能性，作者的论点在很大程度上被削弱了。 此外，作者在其论述中还有一些其他的选择方案没能予以讨论。在不拆毁旧大楼的前提下，另一幢新大楼也可以建造起来，对旧市政厅构成一种补充，并且对旧大楼仍可以进行改造，使其变得更加节药能源。这将创造出"双赢"的局面，全镇民众一方面可以继续拥用旧大楼，另一方面又能拥有一座新大楼。此外，作者提到这样一种可能性，即将新大楼部分空间进行出租，以便为市政府赚取收入。这一点似乎表明，作者所倡导的是去建造一座远超过市政府目前实际用途的大楼。作者在单纯陈述新大楼可为Rockingham镇广开财源之前，必须进行仔细认真成本/收益审计，以确定通过出租部分空间所产生的收益是否能涵盖建造一座规模较大的大楼所需的开支。

最后，作者无视这座长达一个多世纪古老的大楼对Rockingham镇所具有的美学与历史价值。作者陈述道，某些市民曾提议建造一座更为节约能源的新大楼，但这位作者没有提到这些市民是否倡导将旧大楼拆毁。当作者在讨论Rockingham镇所能节省的"相当一部分费用"时，这位作者应该考虑到一座传统的旧市政大厅所能给一个社区带来的价值，无论是在金钱方面，还是在社区认同感方面。

总而言之，作者没能以其论述来说服我们，因为他（她）没能考虑其他一些有可能的选择方案，这些选择方案既能解决旧大楼的现有问题，又能保证Rockingham社区继续拥有这幢旧大楼。若要使其论点更具有力度，作者应该拿出一份成本/收益分析，对他（她）所提出的方案进行成本分析，并将它与其他选择方案--如对旧大楼进行改造，或建造一座规模较小的补充性大楼--的成本进行比较。没有这样的分析，该作者所陈述的仅仅只是一个无法令人置信的意见而已。

imongUID：140258

argument164

Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. The best solution to this problem is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. It is common knowledge that tourists are willing to pay money to tour some of the architect's buildings, so it can be expected that tourists will want to visit this new building. The income from the fees charged to tourists will soon cover the building costs. Furthermore, such a building will attract new students as well as donations from alumni. And even though such a building will be much larger than our current need for student housing, part of the building can be used as office space.

This argument states that a famous architect that is known for futuristic and experimental buildings should be commissioned to build student housing for Claitown University as a means of gaining affordable housing for its students as well as funding the project. The arguer states that tourists would want to visit such student housing buildings and that the income from tourist fees would soon pay for the building. The arguer also states that the building would attract new students and donations from alumni, and that part of the oversized building could be used as office space. This argument is based on problematic reasoning and fails to convince for several reasons.

First of all, the arguer assumes that because some of a famous architect's other buildings attract tourists and fees, tourists will also pay money to visit the new student housing building built by him or her. There is no justification for such reasoning. It is likely that such other buildings were built in tourist-type areas with the specific purpose in mind of attracting tourists. Examples of such buildings abound: the Empire State Building and the former World Trade Centers of New York, the Oriental Pearl of Shanghai, the Louvre museum building in Paris - all were built with the intention of attracting tourists. These buildings and their surrounding areas all have some intrinsic tourist value. It is highly likely that no matter how unusual the building, very few tourists would go out of their way to a college campus to see a student dormitory building. The argument lacks credibility from this standpoint.

Secondly, hiring a famous architect will likely be prohibitively more expensive as such architect's services are in constant demand across the entire world, and only so many buildings can be designed in a certain period of time. The additional fee that the architect alone can command, combined with the likelihood that a futuristic or experimental design will also be tremendously more expensive, makes this idea unworkable. The arguer must be assuming an enormously large income from tourist's fees, which as stated before is extremely unlikely. This second point critically weakens the argument.

Thirdly, the arguer fails to consider the viewpoint of the students that would be living in the futuristic or experimental housing. He or she assumes that such a building would attract students to the university, just as it would supposedly attract tourists. Even assuming that it would attract tourists, what student, or person for that matter, wants to live in a home that is constantly toured by strangers? Furthermore, there are safety factors to consider. How safe can a futuristic or experimental building be? This argument must be rejected on safety grounds if for no other reason as an "experimental" building is simply not appropriate for use as student housing.

Furthermore, the arguer assumes that the building would attract donations from alumni. On the contrary, the opposite is more likely. An expensive architect building an expensive student housing project is likely to anger alumni, not please them - it would be seen as a waste of money and they would refuse to donate any more to the school. Additionally, without any basis in fact, the arguer states that the building would be much larger than current student housing needs, but that the extra room could be used for office space. This suggests that the arguer has already seen some plans or made some plans, indicating that there may be a conflict of interest here that should be investigated further.

In summary, without actual cost and income estimates, this argument is based on nothing more than pure speculation and perhaps wishful thinking. The argument at best is unconvincing - at worst it reeks of conflict of interest that may warrant investigation into the motives behind the argument.

(627 words)

参考译文

[题目]

Claitown大学需要为学生提供较为廉价的住房，以及需要寻找到一种方法，来为建造此类住房提供资金。解决这一问题的最佳方案是将建筑设计委托给一位以实验性和未来主义建筑风格著称的建筑设计师。众所周知，观光旅游者均愿意花钱去游览该建筑师设计的某些建筑，因此，我们可以预料，游人将会参观这一新建大楼。从向游人收取的费用中产生的收益将很快就涵盖建造成本。此外，这样一座建筑将吸引新学生来就读，也能吸引校友的捐款。虽然这样一座建筑规模之大会超出我们目前学生住房的需要，但大楼的部分区域可以用作办公空间。


[范文正文]

本项论述宣称，一位以未来主义和实验性建筑风格著称的著名建筑师应被授予委托，去为Claitown大学设计建造学生住房，作为一种手段来为其学生获取廉租房，并为该建设项目筹得资金。论述者宣称，旅游者们将希望来参观这样的学生住房建筑，并且从旅游者收费中所产生的收益将很快就可以支付大楼的建设成本。论述者还称，该建筑还将吸引新生入学，吸引校友捐款，并且大楼规模超大部分可用作办公空间。上述论述所依据的是相当成问题的逻辑推理，由于多方面的原因而无法令人信服。

首先，论述者假定，由于一位著名建筑师其他一些建筑物中的有一些曾吸引过旅游者和收费来源，故旅游者们同样也会花钱来参观由这位建筑师所设计建造的这幢新的学生公寓楼。这样一种逻辑推理缺乏丝毫理据。情况有可能是，其他此类建筑建造于旅游区，建造时带着专门吸引旅游者的设想。此类建筑实例比比皆是：纽约的帝国大厦和前世贸大厦，上海的东方明珠塔，巴黎的卢浮宫博物馆建筑--所有这些建筑的建设意图就是为着吸引旅游者。这些建筑以及它们的周边地区都具有一定内在的旅游价值。非常有可能出现的情形是，无论所造的大楼多么的非同异常，很少会有旅游者特意去往一所大学校园，去观赏一幢学生的宿舍楼。从这一观点判断，上述论述缺乏可信度。

其次，雇佣一位著名建筑师将会昂贵至极，因为这样的建筑师，其服务在全球范围内供不应求。这位建筑师一个人所值的额外费用，加诸未来派或实验性设计的费用也将极其高昂这一可能性，使得这一想法无法操作。论述者必定是假定向旅游者收取的费用能带来极为巨大的效益。但这一点我早已陈述过是极为不可能的。这第二点也严重地削弱了论述者的上述论点。

第三，论述者也没有考虑到入住到这座未来派或实验性建筑中的学生的看法。这位论述者自以为这样的一座大楼会吸引学生来该大学入学，如同论述者所假设的能吸引旅游者那样。即使我们假定这幢大楼真的能吸引旅游者，但哪一个学生，或哪一个人会愿意居住在一个不断被陌生人浏览观光的居室里呢？此外，还需要考虑安全因素。一座未来派或实验性质的大楼，其安全程度如何？即使不是因为其他缘由的话，单纯基于安全因素的考量，上述论述亦必须予以推翻，因为一座"实验性质的"大楼根本就不宜用作学生住房。

最后，论述者假设所要建造的大楼将能从校友们那里吸引捐款。相反情况更有可能适得其反。聘请一位收费高昂的建筑师来设计建造一座费用高昂的学生公寓，这一工程可能令校友们怒发冲冠，而不是取悦于他们--这会被视作浪费钱财，他们有可能拒绝再向该校提供任何捐助。此外，在没有任何事实依据的情况下，论述者陈述道，拟建的大楼将会规模庞大，超出目前学生的居住需求，但多余的空间可用作办公空间。这暗示论述者早已预见到了某些计划，或已制定出了某些计划，表明这里存在着某种利害关系的冲突，而这一点正是需要作进一步调查的。

总而言之，在没有实际的成本和收入估计的情况下，上述论述仅仅是基于纯粹的臆测，以及或许是一厢情愿式的思维模式。该论述充其量也是无法令人置信的--从最不利的一方面看，它带有利害关系冲突的色彩，使人觉得有必要调查本项论述背后所隐匿的真实动机。

imongUID：140258

argument165

The following appeared in a business magazine.

"As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods."

This argument states that the Promofoods company recalled eight million cans of tuna for testing after numerous complaints from consumers of dizziness and nausea. Promofoods own chemists found that samples of the recalled cans had three of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for symptoms of dizziness and nausea, but that these three are also found naturally in other types of canned foods. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not contain any chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on faulty reasoning; therefore the argument is unconvincing.

To begin with, the argument states that there have been "numerous" consumer complaints, obviously enough to warrant the recall of eight million cans of tuna. The arguer goes on to state that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the cans of tuna. This part of the argument has two flaws - first of all, the testers are not independent and may indeed have a duty to find that there is nothing wrong with the tuna, and secondly, the number of cans that were tested as a sample is not disclosed. The first flaw in the argument could be rectified by simply having outside, independent researchers test the samples of the recalled tuna. As it stands, the test results are somewhat suspicious due to the fact that Promofoods employees conducted the testing. The second flaw may or may not be a major problem, depending upon the number of cans that were sampled and how the sample was chosen. It could be that the defect was with only a certain production date or location, in which case the defects might not be found because the problem cans were not included in the recall or the sample. Additionally, if the number of cans sampled was too small, the sample may not have been representative of all of the cans of tuna, therefore possibly skewing the results one way or the other. To solve this problem, a statistically proper sample should be independently tested with the relative reliability of the numbers included in the argument.

Furthermore, the researchers found that three out of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea were actually found in the recalled cans of tuna, but that they are also naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods. This part of the argument is also very weak, for at least two reasons. First, the argument does not state what levels of these chemicals were found in the Promofood tuna as compared with other types of canned foods. It does not state whether the chemical levels were lower, the same, or higher. The absence of this information critically weakens the argument. Moreover, the argument fails to mention any other possibly hazardous chemicals that may have been found in the cans tested. The arguer merely states that five of the eight most commonly blamed chemicals were not found. This argument leaves open the possibility, if not the probability, that other chemicals could have been found but not mentioned. For both of these reasons, the argument fails to convince.

In summary, the wording of the argument suggests that there is something more to what the chemists found in the cans of tuna than was disclosed in the article in the business magazine. To be more persuasive and to end speculation, Promofoods should have a statistically relevant sample of all cans of its tuna tested by independent testing labs, with a full report released listing all chemicals found in the cans and their relative levels, not just what was not found in an unknown number of cans.
(605 words)

参考译文

[题目]

下述文字摘自某份商业杂志。
"鉴于消费者对头晕和恶心进行了诸多投诉，Promofoods公司去年要求将8百万听金枪鱼罐头回收进行检测。Promofoods公司的检测结论是，这些听装仪器确实不含有可构成健康危险的化学物质。这一结论所依据的是这样一个事实，即来自Promofoods公司的化学分析师对回收的听装金枪鱼进行了抽样检测，结果发现，在被普遍被认为会导致头晕和恶心症状的八种化学物质中，有五种被发现根本不存在于任何所被抽检的听装鱼中。这些化学分析师确实发现剩下的三种涉嫌化学物质可自然而然地发现于所有其他任何种类的听装食物中。"

[范文正文]

上述论述陈述道，Promofoods公司回收了在消费者对其听装金枪鱼进行头晕和恶心的诸多投诉后回收了八百万听金枪鱼进行了检测。Promofoods公司自己的化学分析师发现，回收的听装金枪鱼样品中含有八种最普遍被认为会引发头晕和恶心症状的化学物质中的三种，但这三种也同样自然地发现于其他类型的听装食物中。Promofoods公司的结论是，这些听装食物并不含有任何对身体健康构成威胁的任何化学物质。这一论述基于甚为谬误的逻辑推理，因此所述论点全然无法令人信服。

首先，上述论述陈述道，已出现了"诸多"消费者的投拆，数目之众显然足以有必要将八百万听金枪鱼收回。论述者接着陈述道，来自Promofoods公司的化学分析师抽查了听装的金枪鱼。论述中的这一部分含有两个缺陷。其一，检测者不是来自独立的机构，甚至他们有义务不要去查找出金枪鱼有任何的问题。其二，所被检测的听数没有得到披露。论述中的第一个缺陷较易于纠正，只要邀请外部的独立的研究人员来检验收回的金枪鱼样品即可。但就目前情况来看，由于来自Promofoods公司的员工自己在进行检验，故检验结果会相当令人怀疑。第二个缺陷可能是也可能不是一个重大问题，取决于抽查的金枪鱼罐头数量有多少，以及样本是如何选取的。情况有可能是，产品缺陷仅存在于某些生产日期或生产地点的产品，在这种情况下，由于有问题的罐装金枪鱼没能被囊括在回收的产品中或样本中，故产品的缺陷就无法被查出。此外，如果所抽查的听数太少，则该样本可能就无法来典型地代表所有的金枪鱼罐头，从而有可能以一种方式或另一种方式使检测结果发生偏差。要解决这一问题，应独立检测一份在统计学意义上恰当的样本，其数量的相对可靠性也应囊括在上述论述中。

另外，研究人员发现，在八种最普遍地被认为导致头晕和恶心症状的化学物质中，有三种确实在回收的金枪鱼产品中被发现，那些化学物质相对于其他类型的罐头食品而言，其含量如何。它没有明确陈述化学物含量较低，还是相同，还是较高。这些信息的缺乏严重削弱了该项论述。此外，该项论述没有提及在所被检测的罐头中可能被发现的其他任何可能具有危险的化学物质。论述者只是陈述道八种最普遍被认为有问题的化学物中。有五种未被发现。论述者置这样一种可能性--如果说不是或然性的话--于不顾，即其他化学物早已被人发现，但却没被提及。由于这样的一些原因，该项论述无法令人信服。

总之，该项论述中的措辞暗示，化学分析师在金枪鱼罐头中所发现的东西远不止这份商业杂志中的披露的内容。为了更具说服力并终止人们的猜测，Promofoods公司应拿出其所有金枪鱼罐头在统计学意义上相关的一份样本，由独立的检测实验室来检验，并发布一份翔实的报告，将罐头中所发现的全部化学物质及其含量一一列举出来，而不是仅令列举出数量不明的罐头中未被发现的物质。

imongUID：140258

argument167

A folk remedy* for insomnia, the scent in lavender flowers, has now been proved effective. In a recent study, 30 volunteers with chronic insomnia slept each night for three weeks on lavender-scented pillows in a controlled room where their sleep was monitored. During the first week, volunteers continued to take their usual sleeping medication. They slept soundly but wakened feeling tired. During the second week, the volunteers discontinued their medication. As a result, they slept less soundly than the previous week and felt even more tired. During the third week, the volunteers slept longer and more soundly than in the previous two weeks. This shows that over a short period of time lavender cures insomnia.

(*A folk remedy is usually a plant-based form of treatment common to traditional forms of medicine, ones that developed before the advent of modern medical services and technology.)


This arguer states in his or her argument that a recent study has proven that the scent of lavender flowers is an effective remedy for insomnia. To support this conclusion, the arguer cites the study, which tested thirty volunteers over a three-week period in a controlled room where their sleep was monitored. During the first week, the volunteers continued to take their usual sleeping medications and slept well but awoke feeling tired. For the second week, the medication was discontinued and the volunteers slept less soundly and felt even more tired than before. During the third week, the volunteers slept longer and more soundly than before. This conclusion is based on problematic reasoning and fails to convince on any level.

First of all, the fact that the study took place in a controlled room makes the study's results likely to be different than what would have been found in the volunteers' home environments. For most people, it is difficult, at least at first, to sleep in a new bed in a different place, thus altering the normal patterns of sleeping and ultimately the results of the study. In addition, a study based on the results of only thirty volunteers over just three weeks is hardly a thorough and convincing study of an entire population. This argument is greatly weakened by both of these problems with the study method.

Secondly, the study results showed that for the first week, the subjects slept soundly but wakened feeling tired. This would be expected as medication can force sleep but not the natural type of sleep that is necessary to normally refresh the mind and the body. For the second week, the medication was discontinued with the result being that the volunteers slept less soundly and were even more tired than before. Again, this would be expected as taking away the medication that normally made the volunteers sleepy had interrupted the normal sleep routine. With less sleep, of course the volunteers would feel more tired. For the third week, the study found that the volunteers slept longer and more soundly than they had in the previous two weeks. Rather than attributing this to the lavender scent, the subjects in reality had been tired for the previous two weeks, including one in which they discontinued medication. It would be a natural result for them to sleep well during the third week due to being so tired from the previous two weeks. Additionally, by the third week, the volunteers would be getting familiar with their still relatively new sleeping environment, again helping them to sleep better. With so many possible other causes of better sleep during the third week, it is highly unlikely that the lavender scent had any effect on the volunteers. Because the arguer does not address these other causes, the argument here also fails to convince.

In summary, the arguer has used some unconvincing anecdotal evidence to try to show a direct cause and effect relationship between the scent in lavender flowers and a cure for insomnia. To strengthen the argument, evidence must show a direct causal relationship between the lavender scent and its effect on sleep. The study presented as evidence of such a link does not isolate other possible factors that probably led to better sleep for the volunteers, and as such it does not contribute much to the arguer's improbable conclusion.

(568 words)

参考译文

[题目]

作为一种治疗失眠的民间偏方，熏衣草花卉的花香已被证明有其疗效。在近期的一项研究中，有30名志愿者--他们全都患有长期失眠症--在一间控制室内连续三周每晚都枕着有熏衣草花香的枕头就寝。科研人员对他们的睡眠状况进行了全程监测。第一星期，志愿者们继续服用他们平常服用的安眠药。他们睡得很香，但第二天醒来时感觉疲惫。第二周，志愿者们停止服用安眠药，结果是，他们睡得没有上个星期那么香，并觉得更为疲惫。至第三周，志愿者们睡眠的时间比前两个星期更长，且睡得更香。这表明，在一个较短的时间内，熏衣草已治愈了失眠症。"

（注：所谓偏方常指一种基于植物的治疗形式，为传统医疗形式所普遍采用，它们形成于现代医疗服务和技术出现之前。）


[范文正文]

上述论点的论述者在其论述中陈述道，近期的一项研究已证明，熏衣草花卉的芳香可有效地治愈失眠症。为了支持这一结论，论述者援引了一项研究，该研究对30名志愿者进行了为期三个星期的测验，将受测试者置于一间控制室内，对其睡眠状况进行全程监测。第一周，志愿者们继续服用他们惯常服用的安眠药，睡得很香，但醒来时甚感疲倦。第二周，志愿者们停止用药后，睡得便没有那么香，且感到比以前还要疲倦得多。第三周，志愿者们睡眠的时间较以前长，且睡得香。这一结论基于极成问题的逻辑推理，在任何层面上均无法令人置信。

首先，该项研究是在某一控制室内进行，这一事实就足以使得该项研究的结果可能全然有别于在其家庭环境中进行研究所有可能发现的结果。对于大多数人来说，至少是在初期，是很难在一个全新的环境中的一张全新的床上睡好的，因此，这会改变其正常的睡眠模式，并因而会最终改变研究结果。此外，一项只是基于三十个人为期仅三个星期的研究很难成为一项面向所有人口的全面而有说服力的研究。由于该研究方法中的这二大缺陷，上述论点倍遭削弱。

其次，该项研究的结果表明，第一周内，受试者们睡得很香，但醒来时甚感疲倦。这可以被视作意料之中的事，因为药物可强制人们入睡，但这种睡眠不是一种自然的睡眠，不是用来放松身心的一种正常手段。第二周内，药物的使用被停止，其结果是，志愿者们没能睡得那么香，且感到比以前甚至更疲倦。这又是情理之中的事。因为拿走那些通常会使志愿者们感到困倦的药物会打断其惯常的睡眠习性。由于睡得较少，志愿者们当然会感到更为倦乏。至第三周，该项研究发现，志愿者们的睡眠与以前的二周相比时间变长了，且睡得更香了。我们不应将这一点归诸于熏衣草的芳香。实际上，这是由于受试者们二个星期以来已甚感困倦，其中包括停止服用药物的那个星期。由于在第二周中是如此疲倦，因此，他们在第三周中睡得很香应是顺理成章。此外，至第三周，志愿者们已越来越适应了他们仍然相对陌生的睡眠环境，这一点也可以帮助他们睡得更香。由于第三周中志愿者睡眠状况的改善存在着如许多其他的可然性原因，因此，熏衣草的芳香极不可能对志愿者们产生了任何影响。由于论述者没有涉及这些其他的原因，故所持论点在这里再次无法令人信服。

概而言之，论述者利用某些缺乏说服力的、轶事趣闻性质的证据，试图来证明在熏衣草花香和医治失眠症之间存在着某种直接的因果关系。若要使其论点更具力度，就必须拿出证据来证明熏衣草的芳香和它对失眠的疗效之间有着直接的因果联系。作为这一联系的证据而摆出的该项研究，没能分离出其他某些有可能致使志愿者们改善其睡眠状况的或然性因素。如此看来，该项研究无法起到太大的作用来支持论述者所提出的那种极不可能的结论

imongUID：140258

argument168

Typically, as people age, their bone mass decreases, making them more vulnerable to bone fractures. A recent study concludes that the most effective way to reduce the risk of fractures in later life is to take twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium daily. The three-year study followed a group of French women in their eighties who were nursing-home residents. The women were given daily supplements of twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium. In addition, the women participated in a light weightlifting program. After three years, these women showed a much lower rate of hip fractures than is average for their age.

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the most effective way of reducing the risk of bone fractures in later life is to take twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium daily. To support this conclusion, the arguer cites a three-year study of French nursing home resident women in their eighties who were given daily supplements of twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium. In this study, the women also participated in a light weightlifting program and showed a much lower than average rate of hip fractures for their age. Looking closely at the argument reveals that it is based on faulty reasoning and fails to deliver on its premise.

The most obvious and glaring defect in the reasoning behind this argument is the fact that this study was based on French women who were already residents of a nursing home. Nursing homes are very well protected environments, particularly when it comes to the problem of the elderly falling, as this is a well known and common problem. Strict safety precautions are in place to protect nursing home residents from falling, including the widespread use of walkers and wheelchairs, as well as generously and appropriately placed handrails to assist with moving about. The arguer attempts to attribute the much lower rate of hip fractures to the higher doses of vitamin D and calcium, but it is much more likely that the average rate is lower because the residents are better protected from falling and hurting themselves in the first place.

Additionally, the arguer fails to account for the obvious health benefits generated by the light weightlifting program. Weight training helps to strengthen both bone and muscle, leading to a more physically fit body with better balance and stamina. A more fit physique leads to fewer health problems by likely keeping the women from falling in the first place, and if they should fall, better muscle tone and mass could also better protect the underlying bones. It is highly likely that the weight-training program itself led to more health benefits than the double dose of vitamin D and calcium. By failing to address the likely contributions of the light weightlifting program, the arguer has failed to convey a convincing argument.

Furthermore, the study addresses only French people, only women and only those in their eighties. The arguer's conclusion states that "the most effective way to reduce the risk of fractures in later life" is by doubling the daily dose of calcium and vitamin D, meaning all people in later life, including men. The study did not have any male participants, nor did it have anyone under or over the ages of eighty to eighty-nine or from any other countries. Even assuming the validity of the study, there is no direct evidence of the fracture reducing benefits of increasing the dosage of vitamin D and calcium in anyone other than French women in their eighties in nursing homes. Additionally, the study only mentions hip fractures - it does not address any other types of bone fractures. Without such cause and effect evidence for other people and other bones in the body, the argument remains unconvincing.

In summary, the argument fails to convince by offering weak evidence that does not support the arguer's conclusion that the most effective way to reduce the risk of fractures in later life is to take two times the regular dose of vitamin D and calcium everyday. Even assuming that the study does demonstrate that it helps, there is nothing in the argument or the study that shows that it is the most effective way of doing so. Without such direct causal evidence, the study itself does not support the arguer's premise.

(622 words)

参考译文

[题目]

普遍而言，随着人们日趋衰老，他们的骨质会减少，使其更易于招致骨折。一项近期的研究结论是，晚年生活中减少骨折风险的最有效方法是每日服用两倍于大夫建议的维生素D和钙。此项为期三年的研究追踪了一组年届八旬的法国妇女，她们均为私人疗养院居民。这些妇女每天均被给予两倍于大夫建议的维生素D和钙剂量的补充药物。此外，这些妇女还参加了一项轻微的举重计划。三年之后，这些妇女显示出了比其年龄段平均发病率远低得多的臀部骨折。


[范文正文]

在本项论述中，论述者的结论是，晚年生活中减少骨折的最有效方法是每日服用两倍于大夫所建议的维生素D和钙剂量。为了支持其结论，论述者援引了一项为期三年的对法国某私人疗养院年届八旬的女性居民所作的研究。在该项研究中，这些妇女每日被给予两倍于大夫建议的维生素D和钙剂量。这些妇女也参加一项轻微的举重计划，并显示出比其年龄段平均发病率低得多的臀部骨折。对这一论述细加推敲便会表明，它所依据的完全是错误的推理，无法为其命题提供充分的依据。

在该论点所隐含的推理中，最明显和最引人注目的谬误莫进于这样一个事实，即这一研究是基于早已成为某一私人疗养所居民的法国妇女。私人疗养所是一些有着非常完善保护设施的环境，尤其是在涉及到老年人摔倒这方面，因为这是一个众所周知和甚为普遍的问题。严格的安全防范措施十分到位，用以保护私人疗养院居民免遭摔跌之苦，包括广泛使用步行辅助器以及轮椅，以及在各处慷慨而又恰当地设置扶手来帮助行走。该论述者试图将较低水平的臀部骨折归诸于这些居民服用高剂量的维生素D和钙。但是情况很有可能是，疗养院中之所以平均骨折发生率较低，首先是因为这里的居民针对摔倒和受伤已获得了较为完善的防护。

此外，该论述者也没能说清楚轻微的举重计划所产生的明显健康作用。举重训练有助于增强人们的骨骼和肌肉，导致锻炼者身体状况得以改善，获得更好的平衡能力以及耐力。较佳的体质可导致较少的健康问题，因为首先这样的体质可使那些妇女不会随便摔倒，并且，即使她们真的摔倒的话，较好的肌肉张力及肌肉块也可以更好地保护位于下面的骨头。情况很有可能是举重训练计划本身，而不是两倍剂量的维生素D和钙，给女性居民们带来了更多的健康作用。由于没能探讨轻微的举重训练计划有可能带来的裨益，该论述者便没能传递出一个令人信服的论点。

再者，该项研究只涉及法国人，只涉及妇女，并且只涉及年已八旬的妇女。该论述者在结论中陈述道："在人们晚年生活中减少骨折风险的最有效方法"是每日服用两倍的钙与维生素D剂量。这里，论述者指的是进入晚年生活的所有的人，包括男性。该项研究并没有包括男性参与者，也没有包含任何80－89岁这一年龄段之上或之下的任何其他人，或来自任何其他国家的人。即使假定该项研究的有效性，也没有任何直接的论据来证明，除了私人疗养院中的八旬法国妇女外，任何人服用较大剂量的维生素D和钙会有利于减少骨折。此外，该项研究仅仅提及臀部骨折--它没能探讨任何其他类型的骨折。如果没有就其他人或就体内的其它骨头提供因果证据，该论点依然无法令人信服。

概而言之，该论点不能达到说服人的作用，因为所提出的甚为薄弱的证据根本就无法来支持论述者的结论，即人们晚年生活中减少骨折风险的最有效方法是每天服用两倍于正常剂量的维生素D和钙。即使我们假定该项研究确实能证明这一做法有益处，该项论述或研究中还是没有任何证据能证明这一做法是减少骨折的最有效的方法。没有这种直接的因果证据，该项研究无法来支持论述者的命题。