Argument官方范文分析全系列

pewcg8UID：2143213

之一：Forestville
No.1:
Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour.  Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent.  But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period.  Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.

题目分析：
论据，结论分析：
作者的论据有：
1.        Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles by ten miles per hour
2.        the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent
3.        the speed limit in Elmsford remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period
结论是：
if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase
先分析论据，论证本身的问题（但这并不是ETS强调的入手点）
对论据２，可以质疑它的基数是否足够大，对于结论可以质疑要求市民进行campaign这样的活动是否可取．
现在再来看看最重要的the line of reasoning!
        论据１，２之间作者建立了因果关系，特别注意开头的six month ago，那么我们就可以攻击它的时序性因果错误，找出他因，削弱论据１，２之间的因果联系．
        论据３和论据１，２之间建立的是类比关系，不用多说，错误类比．
        另外，研究作者由论据１，２，３推出结论的过程，即使１，２，３成立，那么是否还忽略了其他导致交通事故的原因？是否限速就一定能够减少交通事故？等等．

下面是范文分析：
6分：
The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making a comparison of the region of Forestville, the town with the higher speed limit and therefore (这里省略higher)automobile accidents, with the region of Elmsford, an area of a lower speed limit and subsequently fewer accidents, the argument for reducing Forestville's speed limits in order to decrease accidents seems logical.（用了seem实际上就是说not logical）(语言上，可以看出长短句的结合非常好，复述句是结构很好的长句，但是指明逻辑错误的句子短，醒目，并且就在文章开头，开门见山！使用make a comparison of sth. with sth.来提示这个类比的关系，同时therefore和subsequently指示出了因果关系)
开头简练，只用了６０个词，就复述了原文的重点并指出了其逻辑错误．最值得学习的地方是作者用一句话不但表达了原文论据间建立的因果关系，还表达了两个town之间的类比关系，合理的改写，而不是重抄原文．

However,（进行转折，合理衔接，下面进入了论述，这就是所谓的clear transition） the citizens of Forestville are failing to consider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidents after the raise in speed limit. Such alternatives may include the fact that there are less (这个就是所谓的minor grammar error) reliable cars traveling the roads in Forestville,(车况的不同) or that the age bracket（年龄限制） of those in Elmsford may be more conducive to driving safely. （驾驶者本身的情况不同） It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville than there are in Elmsford.  In addition, the citizens have failed to consider the geographical and physical terrain of the two different areas. （道路状况的不同） Perhaps Forestville's highway is in an area of more dangerous curves, sharp turns, or has many intersections or merging points where accidents are more likely to occur.  It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area.  Elmsford may be an area of easier driving conditions where accidents are less likely to occur regardless of the speed limit.（首先上来攻击类比的问题，其实可以看出来，作者根本没有用什么高深的逻辑学知识，就是以交通事故为核心，找出两个城镇在交通状况，驾驶员年龄以及车况这三个方面的不同，从而攻击原文作者在这里进行的类比．我的收获是，不是必须用摸版在这里写，只要层次分明的详细描述这两个town的区别就可以，这样的语言写的比较具体，否则搬摸版上来，显得比较抽象和＂虚＂）
另外其实可以看出作者严密的逻辑思维，考虑到交通问题，作者正好从这三方面入手，交通问题涉及的驾驶者，车辆，道路（其实还有作者忽视的一方面，那就是交通管理部门）．

A six-month period is not a particularly long time frame for the citizens to determine that speed limit has influenced the number of automobile accidents in the area. （时间不够长也不能急于下结论，同时削弱两者的因果联系）（语言上，这里其实并没有过渡，也许这一点并不影响６分的得分吧．） It is mentioned in the argument that Elmsford accidents decreased during the time period.  This may have been a time, such as during harsh weather conditions, （驾驶的天气情况）when less people were driving on the road and therefore the number of accidents decreased.  However, Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced by employment or other requirements, were unable to avoid driving on the roads.  Again, the demographics of the population are important. （人口数量问题，就是前面分析题目时提到的基数问题） It is possible that Elmsford citizens do not have to travel far from work or work from their home, or do not work at all.  Are there more people in Forestville than there were six months ago?  If so, there may be an increased number of accidents due to more automobiles on the road, (把人口增加和交通事故增多联系起来，削弱了速度限制和交通事故增加的因果关系)and not due to the increased speed limits.  Also in reference to the activities of the population, it is possible that Forestville inhabitants were traveling during less safe times of the day, （驾驶时间）such as early in the morning, or during twilight.  Work or family habits may have encouraged citizens to drive during this time when Elmsford residents may not have been forced to do so.（批驳忽略他因的错误，这里的批驳还建立在两者对比的基础上，也就是说作者的批驳是建立在原文作者的这个错误类比的基础上，因为他认为这个类比是一个核心的错误．这就是官方说明里指出的：identifying a central flaw in the argument and developing that critique extensively）

Overall, the reasoning behind decreasing Forestville's speed limit back to its original seems logical as presented above since the citizens are acting in their own best interests and want to protect their safety.  However, before any final decisions are made about the reduction in speed limit, the citizens and officials of Forestville should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for the increased number of accidents over the six-month period as compared to Elmsford.(结尾段改写开头段提出逻辑错误那句话，并且给出了作者的意见．即官方说明里说的：what change in the argument would make the reasoning more sound.)

全文共５１４词．
COMMENTARY
This outstanding essay begins by noting that the argument "seems logical."  It then proceeds to discuss possible alternative explanations for the increase in car accidents and provides an impressively full analysis.  Alternatives mentioned are that

-- the two regions might have drivers of different ages and experience;
-- Forestville's topography, geography, cars, and/or roads might
   contribute to accidents;
-- six months might be an insufficient amount of time for determining
   that the speed limit is linked to the accident rate;
-- demographics might play a role in auto accidents;
-- population and auto density should be considered; and
-- the times of day when drivers in the two regions travel might be relevant.
(从这里可以看出阅卷者更注意的是你给出的他因和alternative explanations.)
The points are cogently developed and are linked in such a way as to create a logically organized essay.  Transitions together with interior connections create a smoothly integrated presentation.  For the most part, the writer uses language correctly and well and provides excellent variety in syntax.  The minor flaws (e.g., using "less" instead of "fewer") do not detract from the overall high quality of the critique.  (这里我们也应该可以解读出什么是所谓的minor flaws)This is an impressive 6 paper.

________________________________________
5分：
The argument above presents a sound case for arguing that if the region of Forestville wants to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should consider reducing the speed limit to what it was before the increase in speed limit took place 6 months previously. However, there are some intermediate steps （中间步骤）that one could take before jumping to the conclusion that reducing the speed limit is the only way in which traffic accidents can be reduced.（这里的缺点就是没有提出核心的类比部分）（这两篇文章的共性就是都首先指出了作者的结论！）

First of all, I would examine the actual number of traffic accidents that occurred before and after the speed limit increase and compare this to the size of the region and its driving population. （这里一样考虑的是人口数量，同时本文的作者还注意到了交通事故的数量的基数问题，就像我刚才在题目分析里指出的．）For example, if the Forestville region's driving population is 1 million people, and the traffic accidents for a 6-month period before the speed increase totaled 100, then the 15% increase would amount to an additional 16 traffic accidents, or 116 total. For a population of 1 million, there may be other solutions to this increase besides reducing the speed limit to what it was. (The comparison to the region of Elmsford would only be helpful if the regions driving demography is comparable in terms of size and scope.) A public education campaign emphasizing driver safety and safe driving techniques may suffice to reduce the number of traffic accidents. Especially considering that if the number of accidents relative to the population is somewhat small, it is a fairly safe driving population anyway.（这就是质疑结论的合理性）

In addition, I would consider lengthening the time of the study. Six months may be a relatively short period of time for which to study the rate of traffic accidents. Upon a closer examination of when the accidents occurred, one might ascertain that most of the driving accidents occurred within a month of raising the speed limit, but that there have been relatively few additional accidents since that first phase-in period. Lengthening the study to a one-year period would help adjust for any untypical statistics and paint a more accurate picture of the long-term affects of the speed limit increase.（关于调查时间的问题，指出调查的时间不够长使得得到的结论不可信）

I would also examine what else was occurring in the region during the period of the study. For example, was there a major highway construction project happening during this time which would have added to the unsafe nature of raod travel?（路况问题） Are there any alternative explanations for why the increase in traffic accidents could have occurred, or is the increase in speed limit the sole variable? Looking at the type of accidents that occurred, I would examine whether these are the types of car accidents one would expect from traveling at a faster speed to corroborate the cause and effect relationship.（这才是真正的实质，并不是所有的交通事故都是由超速引起的，这里削弱了速度限制和交通事故的联系）

COMMENTARY
As in the sample 6 essay, this writer sees some logic in assuming a connection between the higher speed limit in Forestville and the increase in auto accidents.  Unlike the sample 6 essay, this response is neither as exhaustive in its analysis nor as impressively developed.  The writer makes these points in the critique:

-- A statistical analysis might suggest that the 15% increase in
   accidents is not as significant as it might seem.
-- A car safety education campaign might be a better way to solve the
   problem.
-- A six month period might be too short a time on which to base major
   conclusions.
-- Other factors could have caused the increase in accidents.

Although each of these points is developed and sensibly supported, the critique is not sufficiently full to warrant a score of 6.  The essay demonstrates good control but not mastery of the elements of writing: it contains good variety in syntax, including effective use of rhetorical questions.  The occasional flaws (e.g., the somewhat garbled syntax in paragraph 3: ".??爐ime for which to study the rate???") do not detract from the overall strong quality of the essay.  For all of these reasons, this critique is strong but not outstanding, and thus merits a score of 5.

对比这两篇文章我发现：
１．        两篇文章的开头都不是很罗嗦，都重述了原文作者的结论，都对原文的论据进行了分析．５分作文的缺陷是复述的时候没有抓住类比这个错误的核心，同时复述的语言不算简练和精彩．
２．        ６分作文的点比较多，显得比较丰富，有比较简略的一句带过的几点，也有比较详细说明的两点，显得详略得当，但是５分作文就显得虽然都说的比较详细，但觉得明显漏掉了一些要点．这是因为有些点过于详细，才使得没有时间提到其他的要点！
３．        最重要的一点，５分作文更多的是孤立的看待了作者的论据，没有把分析和原文作者的推理的思路联系起来，质疑的更多是论据和结论的本身，忽视了the line of reasoning,而６分作文几乎都是围绕着作者的思路来批驳的．
４．        两篇范文都从不同角度削弱了作者建立的因果关系，可以说这应该说是本题的一个得分点．

pewcg8UID：2143213

范文分析2：
The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

"Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state.  Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland.  But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue.  If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage（面积） would probably be devoted to athletic fields.  There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."

题目分析：
论据１：Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state
论据２：if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland
论据３：If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage（面积） would probably be devoted to athletic fields
论据４：a large majority of our children participate in sports
结论：Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland
分析：
１．从论据１，２到论据３的推理本身就可以质疑，既然５年前决定了不开发，那么必须有充足的理由确定现在的情况发生了改变．否则，不能说现在就必须reconsider this issue
２．论据３的本身推理有错误，没有证据表明学校建成了就no shopping centers or houses can be built there，剩余的能够兴建体育场的面积完全能够保证建立起shopping centers and houses.相反，也许是学校内的建成促进了购物和住房的发展（许多家庭为了孩子上学会在附近阻房子住，刺激两者发展）同时，我们是否有足够的经费建立体育场也是一个疑问．
３．a large majority of our children participate in sports不能说明大家参加的运动都必须在田径[运动]场上进行．也就是说田径场不能适合所有孩子的需要，同样，相对于park,　school也不是适合所有市民的需要的．

6、（５９５词）
This letter to the editor begins by stating the reasons the residents of Morganton voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state.  The letter states that the entire community could benefit from an undeveloped parkland.  The residents of the town wanted to ensure that no shopping centers or houses would be built there.  This, in turn, would provide everyone in the community with a valuable resource, a natural park.

The letter then continues by addressing the issue of building a school on the land.  The author reasons that this would also benefit the entire community as a natural parkland since much of the land would be devoted to athletic fields.  The author of the letter comes to the conclusion that building a school on the land would be the best thing for everyone in the community.（这种开头可以说是非常详细的复述了原文的内容，并且可以通过黑体的短语看出作者复述的顺序，写了１３７词，这里还没有进入正式的批驳，这是不是可以作为＂开头就要开门见山点题＂这样一个观点的反例呢？）

This letter is a one-sided argument about the best use of the land known as Scott Woods.  The author may be a parent whose child would benefit from a new school,（学生家长方面） a teacher who thinks a school would boost the community,（教师方面） or just a resident of Morganton. （中立方面） Regardless of who the author is, there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore.（这个并列写的非常的妙，大家一定能体会出来overlook和choose to ignore用在这里有怎么样的含义）作者本段其实在质疑原文作者的立场是否中立，如果不是中立的立场，而是利益涉及的一方，那么以后的论断就很难说服别人．

Using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it　for a natural parkland.（首先就很明确的把build a school和 a natural parkland完全分离开，使后面原文作者的说法完全被推翻，这可以说是一个核心的问题）  While all the members of the community could potentially benefit from a parkland, only a percentage of the population would realistically benefit from a new school.（两者的主要区别）  The author fails to recognize people like the senior citizens of the community.  What interest do they have in a new school?  It only means higher taxes for them to pay.  They will likely never to and utilize the school for anything.  On the other hand, anyone can go to a park and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness.  The use of the land for a school would destroy the benefit of a park for everyone.  In turn, it would supply a school only to groups of people in exactly the right age range, not too young or too old, to reap the benefits.
本段质疑核心的问题！

Another point （自然的过度，没有用first, secondly……）the author stresses is that the use of the land for things like athletic fields somehow rationalizes(使．．．．．．合理化) the destruction of the park.  What about children who don't play sports? （首先考虑到不是所有的children都会使用运动场） Without the school, they could enjoy the land for anything.  A playing field is a playing field.  Children are not going to go out there unless they are into sports. （park和运动场的第二个区别） There are many children in schools who are not interested in or are not able to play sports.  This is yet another group who will be left out of the grand benefits of a school that the author talks about.

The author's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this...""is easily arguable.   The destruction of Scott Woods for the purpose of building a school would not only affect the ambience of Morganton, it would affect who would and would not be able to utilize the space.  If the residents as a whole voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state, this argument will not sway their decision.  The use of the land for a school will probably benefit even less people than a shopping center would.  The whole purpose of the vote was to keep the land as an asset for everyone.  The only way to do this is to keep it in an undeveloped state.  Using the land for a school does not accomplish this.（总结，重述，可以发现作者的总结没有丝毫和前面重复的说法，虽然说的是一样的意思！这一个总结段是总结全文的经典！）

COMMENTARY
This outstanding response begins somewhat hesitantly; the opening paragraphs summarize but do not immediately engage the argument.  However, the subsequent paragraphs target the central flaws in the argument and analyze them in almost microscopic detail.
（从这句评论我们可以明显感知到评分的核心在后面的分析，关键不是如何开头，关键是如何分析！）

The writer's main rebuttal points out that "using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for natural parkland."  Several subpoints develop this critique, offering perceptive reasons to counter the argument's unsubstantiated assumptions.  This is linked to a related discussion that pointedly exposes another piece of faulty reasoning: that using land for athletic fields "rationalizes the destruction of the park."

The extensively developed and organically organized analysis continues into a final paragraph that takes issue with the argument's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this."

Diction and syntax are varied and sophisticated, and the writer is fully in control of the standard conventions.  While there may be stronger papers that merit a score of 6, this essay demonstrates insightful analysis, cogent development, and mastery of writing.  It clearly earns a 6.

________________________________________


5分（全文３７７词）
The author's argument is weak. （本文的开头算是开门见山的分析）Though he believes Scott Woods benefits the community as an undeveloped park, he also thinks a school should be built on it. Obviously the author is not aware of the development that comes with building a school besides the facilities devoted to learning or sports. He does not realize that parking lots will take up a substantial area of property, especially if the school proposed is a high school. We are not given this information, nor the size of the student body that will be attending, nor the population of the city itself, so it is unclear whether the damage will be great or marginal.（质疑了建立学校对public land的影响） For a better argument, the author should consider questions like what sort of natural resources are present on the land that will not remain once the school is built? Are there endangered species whose homes will be lost? And what about digging up the land for water lines? It is doubtful whether the integrity of Scott Woods as natural parkland can be maintained once the land has been developed.（详细分析可能的情况和造成的影响！） It is true that a school would probably not cause as much damage as a shopping center or housing development, but the author must consider whether the costs incurred in losing the park-like aspects of the property are worth developing it, when there could be another, more suitable site.（权衡得失问题！） He should also consider how the city will pay for the property, whether taxes will be raised to compensate for the expense or whether a shopping center will be built somewhere else to raise funds.（建立学校的花费怎么解决？） He has not given any strong reasons for the idea of building a school, including what kind of land the property is, whether it is swampland that will have to be drained or an arid, scrubby lot that will need extensive maintenance to keep up the athletic greens. The author should also consider the opposition, such as the people without children who have no interest in more athletic fields.（这就是也在质疑建立学校对那些没有孩子的人的影响，很明显，学校针对的人群必然小于park针的人群！） He must do a better job of presenting his case, addressing each point named above, for if the land is as much a popular community resource as he implies, he will face a tough time gaining allies to change a park to a school.

COMMENTARY

After describing the argument as "weak," this strong essay goes straight to the heart of the matter: building a school is not (as the argument seems to assume) innocuous; rather, it involves substantial development.  The essay identifies several reasons to support this critique.  The writer then points to the important questions that must be answered before accepting the proposal.  These address

-- the costs versus the benefits of developing Scott Woods
-- the impact of development on Scott Woods
-- the possibility of "another, more suitable site"

The generally thoughtful analysis notes still more flaws in the argument:

-- whether the school is necessary
-- whether the selected site is appropriate
-- whether some groups might oppose the plan

Although detailed and comprehensive, the writer's critique is neither as fully developed nor as tightly organized （关键的问题是没有详细的展开和条理的组织）as a 6 essay.  The response exhibits good control of language, although there is some awkward phrasing (e.g., ".??爂aining allies to change a park to a school").  Overall, this essay warrants a score of  5 because it is well developed, clearly organized, and shows 5-level facility with language.


我的收获：
１．        开头段甚至全文的形式对分数不是决定性的，关键在你对这个ARGUMENT本身的分析是否深刻和独到．可以看到，５分的作文全文一大段，也一样不影响拿到５分．
２．        真正的好作文不但找到很多错误，关键是对错误有着详略得当的展开分析，并有着良好的段落组织．
３．        避免与原文的重复！

pewcg8UID：2143213

Topic3:
A recent survey of dental patients showed that people who use Smile-Bright toothpaste are most likely to have capped teeth（人造牙冠） -- artificial but natural-looking protective coverings placed by dentists on individual teeth.  Those people who had begun using Smile-Bright toothpaste early in life were more likely to have capped teeth than were people who had begun using Smile-Bright later in life.  In addition, those who reported brushing their teeth more than twice a day with Smile-Bright toothpaste were more likely to have caps on their teeth than were those who reported brushing with Smile-Bright less frequently.  Therefore, people wishing to avoid having their teeth capped should not use Smile-Bright toothpaste.

属于第４类现象分析型
分析：
论据１：who use Smile-Bright toothpaste are most likely to have capped teeth
论据２：Those people who had begun using Smile-Bright toothpaste early in life were more likely to have capped teeth than were people who had begun using Smile-Bright later in life.
论据３：those who reported brushing their teeth more than twice a day with Smile-Bright toothpaste were more likely to have caps on their teeth than were those who reported brushing with Smile-Bright less frequently.
结论：people wishing to avoid having their teeth capped should not use Smile-Bright toothpaste.
１．论据１到结论的推论非常典型！可批驳．＂使用会．．．．不一定不使用就一定不．．．．．．＂
２．论据２中，３中进行比较的人群特点和其他因素没有被排除
３．论据３中，是否是因为刷牙次数多导致了这样的结构，而不是说因为Smile-Bright
6、
The argument contains several facets that are questionable.  First, the reliability（可靠性） and generalizability（可归纳性） of the survey are open to question.（替代词汇，替代dubious, ungrounded等等）  In addition, the argument assumes a correlation amounts to（amount to等于） a causal relationship.  The argument also fails to examine alternative explanations.  I will discuss each of these facets in turn.（对于A来说，开头到底什么是主题句？？不过这里作者没有restate原文．只是列举了三个将要批驳的问题）

In evaluating the evidence of the survey, one must consider how the survey was conducted. （本段的TS，指出主要批驳survey的过程） If the questions were leading or if the survey relied on self reports, the results might be unreliable -- people might just respond with the expected answer.   One must also consider how broad the survey was.  If the survey was limited to a few patients of a certain dentist, the results might be attributable to those particular individuals and that particular dentist.  Hence, the generalization drawn might not apply to most people.  In addition, even if the survey was broader, one must consider whether it was limited in certain ways.  For example, were the survey respondents old people?  Was the survey limited to a certain city or geographic region?  Factors such as these could explain the survey results and could undermine the generalizability of the survey results.（这里虽然是批驳了调查类问题，但是可以看出作者批驳的时候，着重在最后这一点，就是人群样本的问题，这样结合本题的实际．）

Even if one accepts the survey results, （注意双下划线词汇，看出作者的质疑是一环扣一环下来的）the argument remains questionable.  The argument assumes that the correlation between the use of SMILEBRIGHT and capped teeth means that SMILE BRIGHT causes the need for capped teeth.  But the argument fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion.  In addition, the argument fails to consider the possibility that people who already have capped teeth might prefer SMILEBRIGHT as a toothpaste because it works better on capped teeth.

Finally, the argument's author fails to rule out alternative explanations.  For instance, people who brush their teeth more than twice a day might be those who are prone to the need to have their teeth capped. （可能性１） It might also be the case that starting with SMILEBRIGHT early in life damages the teeth so that capped teeth will be needed later.（可能性２）  It also might be the case that SMILEBRIGHT users tend to be the kind of people who are excessively concerned with the appearance of their teeth, perhaps they are actors, and so are the kind of people who might, sooner or later, want to have their teeth capped anyway.（可能性３，这个最合理！）

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. （回顾上文） The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the correlation is indeed a causal relationship -- that using the toothpaste actually causes the need for capped teeth.  It could be further improved by ruling out alternative explanations for the supposed causal relationship.（作者结尾的特点是提出改进措施）

COMMENTARY
This outstanding response begins by announcing that the argument "contains several facets that are questionable."  The author then develops the critique around three main points:（整个开头起到了Thesis的作用，提出核心问题，并预测自己文章的走势）

-- the reliability and generalizability of the survey results are open to question;
-- the argument assumes that a correlation amounts to a causal relationship; and
-- there are alternative explanations for the facts uncovered by the survey.

Each of these points is analyzed insightfully and in great detail.

The writer demonstrates mastery of the elements of effective writing.  The organization is clear and logical; in fact, the organizational plan outlined in the first paragraph is followed to the letter in the second through fourth paragraphs.  The writing is fluent -- transitions guide the reader from point to point in each paragraph; sentence structures are varied appropriately; diction is apt.  Minor flaws (e.g., the typographical error "quesiton")（一个拼写错误没有影响） do not detract from the overall outstanding quality of this critique.  For all of these reasons, the essay earns a score of 6.
________________________________________

5、The argument above is not sufficiently supported by the evidence given.  Arriving at the conclusion that people wishing to avoid having their teeth capped should not use Smile-Bright toothpaste is not valid based on the information above.（开头一样简练，指出主要问题就结束！值得学习,但是恶心的句子不要出现在开头！开头减少错误！）

First, a major flaw in the argument （注意看，作者的顺序是先说了major的东西）is that no other factors are pointed out that might be causing teeth to be capped other than using Smile-Bright toothpaste.  For example, were these dental patients all from the same geographical area?  If so, they might all be drinking water that is low in fluoride which is causing tooth decay and consequently they will need their teeth to be capped.（水质问题，和人有关的和健康有关的要多考虑周围的环境影响）  Another common factor among the patients might be their dietary habits （饮食习惯，联系衣食住行）which could be causing tooth decay （腐朽, 腐烂,）and capping of teeth rather than using Smile-Bright toothpaste.

In addition to looking at other common factors among patients surveyed, the type of data collected in the argument above needs to be more closely examined before a conclusion can be determined.  For example, while patients who brushed their teeth more than twice a day with Smile-Bright were more likely to have caps on their teeth than those who brushed less frequently with Smile-Bright, this does not prove that Smile-Bright was the cause of capped teeth.  It could be that people who brush their teeth too frequently, no matter what toothpaste they use, are in jeopardy of having to get their teeth capped. （这个句子批驳的是最主要的问题！） Also, the fact that people who began using Smile-Bright early in life were more likely to have capped teeth than those who began using Smile-Bright later in life should be further explored.  It could be that using Smile-Bright as a child is harmful to teeth while using it as an adult has no ill effects.
（本段作者主要攻击论据２，３和结论的关系！抓的好！）

Finally, no information is given about how many patients （这里就攻击的是不太重要的错误了）were surveyed or how they were selected.  The number of patients selected and if they were randomly selected is important information to have in determining how valid the results of the study are.

Based on the lack of consideration of other common factors among patients, insufficient data collected, and lack of information about the number of patients surveyed and how they were selected, I would not accept the above argument that people wishing to avoid having their teeth capped should not use Smile-Bright toothpaste.（没有提出改进，只是重述．）

COMMENTARY
His strong response presents a well-developed critique of the argument.  It is clearly and logically organized and the writer's control of language is evident.  Analysis begins in paragraph 2, where the writer identifies a root flaw in the argument (i.e., the unsupported assumption that the relationship between capped teeth and Smile-Bright is causal).  The critique proposes two external factors that may provide alternative explanations for the apparent "causal" relationship.

Paragraphs 3 and 4 address other holes in the argument:

-- whether frequent toothbrushing with any toothpaste could lead to
   tooth capping
-- whether Smile-Bright is more harmful if used at a young age
-- whether the survey was sufficiently large and/or representative

Each point is described in a generally thoughtful way, but not as fully as in a 6 essay.（批驳不充分，特别是第三点）

The writer is generally in control of the elements of effective writing.  Sentence variety （上面和这里都强调了句式的变化）and above-average diction are strengths in this response, although there are some awkward sentences (e.g., "Arriving at the conclusion that people wishing??? should not use??? is not valid???").  For all of these reasons, the essay earns a score of 5.
注意人家认为长长的分词当主语这样的句子很恶心！

收获：
１．        高分的A比较重视句式的变化
２．        开头段主要是提出主要问题，最好能引导下文的叙述
３．        关键问题是论据和结论的关系，作者批驳给出的都是具体的叙述．
４．        段落最好长短不要差距太大，否则有的点批驳人家认为不完全．
５．        结尾除了总结上文，最好提出改进措施．

pewcg8UID：2143213

Topic4：
Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller-skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.
Please note: All of these sample essays are reproduced as written, although reformatted for this document. Misspellings, typos, grammatical errors, etc. have been retained from the originals.
分析：
论据１：Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing　or any light-reflecting material
结论：by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.
１．        还是那个最常见的问题，不带受伤，带了不一定不受伤．
２．        对所有人的结论，就质疑一下样本是否包括了所有人，负作用呢？

Benchmark 6
The notion（主张） that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is the intent of these products to either prevent accidents from occuring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur. However, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other (and potentially more significant) causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear. （这个就是典型的开头段，这个段落的特点是指出文章的推理逻辑，然后T指出结论有问题，这个是所有Argument都可以借鉴的开头！）
First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear -- preventative gear (such as light reflecting material) and protective gear (such as helmets). Preventative gear is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the "other" is a responsible and caring individual who will afford（afford sb. sth.= provide） the skater the necessary space and attention. Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by an other, the skater or some force of nature. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial.（数据模糊的问题，这里批驳前提到论据的推理）
The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not. If is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution and responsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself. Also, the statistic above is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are relatively dangerous places to skate in the first place. People who are generally more safety conscious (and therefore more likely to wear gear) may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards. （人群本身的问题）
The statistic also goes not differentiate between severity of injuries. The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries. This is certainly not the case. Also, given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and weekends (when doctors' offices are closed), skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment.
Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality (and presumably more expensive) gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear. For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same preventative benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating. Before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by individual pieces of gear would be helpful.
The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and potentially saves lives. Before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be made in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the benefits are needed. After all, a false confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all. （结尾提出了改进意见）

Reader Comment on 6
This outstanding response demonstrates the writer's insightful analytical skills.
The introduction, which notes that adopting the prompt's fallacious reasoning could "...inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear," is followed by a comprehensive examination of each of the argument's root flaws. Specifically, the writer exposes several points that undermine the argument:
*that preventive and protective gear are not the same
*that skaters who wear gear may be less prone to accidents because they are, by nature, more responsible and cautious
*that the statistics do not differentiate by the severity of the injuries
*that gear may not need to be high-quality to be beneficial

The discussion is smoothly and logically organized, and each point is thoroughly and cogently developed. In addition, the writing is succinct,（简洁为美） economical and error-free. Sentences are varied and complex, and diction is expressive and precise.
In sum, this essay exemplifies the very top of the "6" range described in the scoring guide. If the writer had been less eloquent or provided fewer reasons to refute the argument, the essay could still have been scored "6." （这句话有重要的意义，就是本文６２５词，许多人说他写不了６２５词，但是你看这句话，我们省掉最后一个批驳点，５００词的文章一样可以拿６分！）
________________________________________

Benchmark 5
The argument presented is limited but useful. It indicates a possible relationship between a high percentage of accidents and a lack of protective equipment. The statistics cited compel（To necessitate or pressure by force; 使必要） a further investigation of the usefulness of protective gear in preventing or mitigating roller-skating related injuries. However, the conclusion that protective gear and reflective equipment would "greatly reduce...risk of being severely injured" is premature.（T,指出结论的问题） Data is lacking with reference to the total population of skaters and the relative levels of experience, skill and physical coordination （协调性）of that population. It is entirely possible that further research would indicate that most serious injury is averted by the skater's ability to react quickly and skillfully in emergency situations.
Another area of investigation necessary before conclusions can be reached is identification of the types of injuries that occur and the various causes of those injuries. The article fails to identify the most prevalent types of roller-skating related injuries. It also fails to correlate the absence of protective gear and reflective equipment to those injuries. For example, if the majority of injuries are skin abrasions and closed-head injuries, then a case can be made for the usefulness of protective clothing mentioned. Likewise, if injuries are caused by collision with vehicles (e.g. bicycles, cars) or pedestrians, then light-reflective equipment might mitigate the occurences. However, if the primary types of injuries are soft-tissue injuries such as torn（磨损的） ligaments and muscles, back injuries and the like, then a greater case could be made for training and experience as preventative measures.

Reader Comment on 5
This strong response gets right to the work of critiquing the argument, observing that it "indicates a possible relationship" but that its conclusion "is premature." It raises three central questions that, if answered, might undermine the soundness of the argument:
o        What are the characteristics of the total population of skaters?
o        What is the usefulness of protective or reflective gear in preventing or mitigating rollerskating-related injuries?
o        What are the types of injuries sustained and their causes?
The writer develops each of these questions by considering possible answers that would either strengthen or weaken the argument. The paper does not analyze the argument as insightfully or develop the critique as fully as the typical "6" paper, but the clear organization, strong control of language, and substantial degree of development warrant more than a score of "4."
段落的未充分展开，还有分析的不够仔细导致了５分，但是我们可以从这里学到的是，我们写的时候就要每个批驳点写的具体，分析的透彻，这样，哪怕最后写不全，得５分是没问题的．

pewcg8UID：2143213

Topic5: University of Claria

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
The University of Claria is generally considered one of the best universities in the world because of its instructors' reputation, which is based primarily on the extensive research and publishing record of certain faculty members.（论据１） In addition, several faculty members are internationally renowned as leaders in their fields.（论据２）  For example, many of the faculty from the English department are regularly invited to teach at universities in other countries.（论据３）  Furthermore, two recent graduates of the physics department have gone on to become candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physics. （论据４） And 75 percent of the students are able to find employment after graduating. （论据５） Therefore, because of the reputation of its faculty, the University of Claria should be the obvious choice for anyone seeking a quality education.（结论）

SAMPLE-1 (score 6)
While the University of Claria appears to have an excellent reputation based on the accomplishments and reputations of its faculty, one would also wish to consider other issues before deciding upon this particular institution for undergraduate or graduate training.  （指出结论的问题，几乎所有的官方范文的开头都是没有restate原文，而是指出了原文的结论－最大的一步推论有误，然后适当的说一些核心问题，１－２个）The Physics and English departments are internationally known, but these are only two of the areas in which one might study.  Other departments are not listed; is this because no others are worth mentioning, or because no other departments bothered to turn in their accomplishments and kudos to the publicity office?

The assumption is that because English and Physics have excellent brains in the faculty offices, their teaching skills and their abilities to pass on knowledge and the love of learning to their students are equally laudable.  Unfortunately, this is often not the case.  A prospective student would certainly be advised to investigate thoroughly the teaching talents and attitudes of the professors, the library and research facilities, the physical plant of the departments in which he or she was planning to study, as well as the living arrangements on or off campus, and the facilities available for leisure activities and entertainment.

This evaluation of the University of Claria is too brief, and too general.  Nothing is mentioned about the quality of overall education; it only praises the accomplishments of a few recent graduates and professors.  More important than invitations to teach elsewhere, which might have been engineered by their own departmental heads in an attempt to remove them from the campus for a semester or two, is the relationship between teacher and student.  Are the teaching faculty approachable?  Are they helpful?  Have they an interest in passing on their knowledge?  Are they working for the future benefit of the student or to get another year closer to retirement?  How enthusiastic are the students about the courses being taught and the faculty members who teach those classes?  Are there sufficient classes available for the number of students?  Are the campus buildings accessible; how is the University handling all those cars?  Is the University a pleasant, encouraging, interesting, challenging place to attend school?  What are its attitudes about education, students, student ideas and innovations, faculty suggestions for improvement?（无数的问题！虽然没有直接回答，但是答案已经在我们的脑海了）

What about that 75% employment record?  Were those students employed in the field of their choice, or are they flipping burgers and emptying wastebaskets while they search for something they are trained to do.  A more specific statement about the employability of students from this University is needed in order to make the argument forceful.

The paragraph given merely scratches the surface of what must be said about this University in order to entice students and to convince them that this is the best place to obtain a quality education.  Much more work is needed by the public relations department before this can be made into a four-color brochure and handed out to prospective students.（提出改进意见）


COMMENTARY
The writer of this outstanding response acknowledges that the University of Claria may "appear" to have a sterling reputation, but cogently argues that such a reputation is perhaps unwarranted in light of the thin and misleading information provided.  The essay's insightful critique targets several instances of unsound reasoning in the argument:

-- that the argument identifies academic achievements in only two
   departments;
-- that publications and research prove little about the quality of
   teaching at Claria; and
-- that the student employment statistic lacks specificity and may be
   entirely bogus.

The writer probes each questionable assumption and offers alternative explanations, pointing out, for instance, that invitations for faculty to teach elsewhere may have been purposely arranged in order to temporarily remove them from campus and that the employed students may be "flipping burgers and emptying wastebaskets."

In addition, the response perceptively analyzes many features -- omitted by the argument -- that could more convincingly make the case that Claria is "the obvious choice."  The essay suggests that the search for a quality education would, at least, need to investigate the teaching strengths of the faculty; ideally one would also ask about research facilities, the university's physical plant, availability of classes, even parking arrangements!

Although the fourth paragraph ("What about that 75% employment record?") interrupts this discussion,（衔接不太好！） the essay is, on the whole, logically and effectively organized.  Each paragraph develops the central premise: that the argument is uncompelling because it fails to use more valid indices of educational quality.

The writing is succinct, graceful, and virtually error-free, distinguished by impressive diction ("kudos," "laudable," "engineered," "entice"), as well as syntactic sophistication.  For all of these reasons, the essay earns a 6.


________________________________________
SAMPLE-2 (score 5)
While it is true that the facts presented in the above passage contribute to the idea that the University of Claria is a fine university, it can hardly be concluded from the propaganda（宣传） that the University of Claria is the best university for every applicant.（质疑绝对性的词语）  （全问的T，指出关键结论的问题）For example, it appears, based on the passage, that the University of Claria is largely a research-oriented university.  No where in the passage, however, is the quality of the education discussed.  The faculty/student ratio is not discussed.  It is largely possible that while many of the faculty are teaching at universities in other countries, the students at U. Claria are left being taught by graduate students or non-doctoral instructors.

Secondly, the passage states that 75 percent of graduates from U. Claria find jobs.  One wonders where these graduates obtained their jobs.  It is possible that very few graduates are able to find work in their fields of major.  The number of graduates who enroll in graduate school is also not disclosed.  One would expect a large number of graduates from a research-oriented university to pursue research careers.  These students would undoubedtly require a graduate school education, rather than simply a Bachelor's level degree.  By stating that 75 percent of graduates find employment, the reader is left to wonder why these students entered the workforce, rather than graduate school, since graduates with Bachelor's level degrees often do not land research-oriented jobs.

Lastly, the socioeconomic status of the institution is not disclosed.  Perhaps the University of Claria is an expensive school located in the heart of a large metropolitain city.  Certain prospective applicants to the university may not be able to afford such a costly school, nor may the like the idea of living in a crowded metropolis.  The fact that the argument leaves our the socioeconomic status of the school leads the reader to believe that the school perhaps has something to hide; perhaps its socioeconomic situation is not something it is proud of.  In addition to the "sales pitch" passage, above, the argument should include facts that a diverse group of students may find useful, such as the cost of education and the quality of its teaching program.  Only after evaluating all the facts might a student strongly agree that the University of Claria is one of the best universities in the world.


COMMENTARY
After dismissing（to reject serious consideration of） the argument's unsupported conclusion about the University of Claria,（忽视了核心的问题） this strong essay thoughtfully critiques the argument's presumptive line of reasoning.  The response targets a root flaw in the argument's logic: that the data provided fail to constitute meaningful evidence of educational quality.  The writer notes the lack of essential statistics -- e.g., the faculty/student ratio -- and argues quite effectively that invitations for faculty to teach in other countries may not be a reliable index of educational merit.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 address additional flaws in the argument:

-- whether the 75% of employed graduates found work related to their
   majors;
-- whether, in a research-oriented institution like Claria, it might not
   be expected that most graduates would go on to graduate school;
   and
-- whether Claria might not be affordable to all applicants or might be
   located in an area that some would find undesirable.

The analysis is clear, sensible, and logically organized, but development is neither as uniform nor as full as in a typical 6 essay.  Nor is the response as precise as a 6.  In the final paragraph, for instance, references to Claria's cost are vaguely described as "the socioeconomic status of the institution."（没有具体的说明白！）

The response exhibits generally good control of language, but awkward phrasing and inflated language sometimes result in a lack of clarity (e.g., "left being taught," "fields of major," "Bachelor's level degree").  Overall, this essay merits a score of 5.  It presents a well-developed and effectively written critique, but lacks the cogency and superior fluency of a 6.（３处语言的问题）

pewcg8UID：2143213

Topic6: Silver Screen Movies

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Silver Screen Movie Production Company.
"According to a recent report from our marketing department, fewer people attended movies produced by Silver Screen during the past year than in any other year. （论据１） And yet the percentage of generally favorable comments（注释, 评论, 意见） by movie reviewers about specific Silver Screen movies actually increased during this period. （论据２） Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers; so the problem lies not with the quality of our movies but with the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available.（推论）  Silver Screen should therefore spend more of its budget next year on reaching the public through advertising and less on producing new movies."（结论）

SAMPLE-1 (score 6)
The argument presented above is relatively sound, however, the author fails to recognize all the elements necessary to evaluate his situation.  The idea that more money be invested in advertising may be a helpful one, but perhaps not because people are unaware of the current reviews.  To clarify, it may be necessary to advertise more in order to increase sales, however that could be due to many circumstances such as a decrease in the public's overall attendance, an increase in the cost of movies, or a lack of trust in the opinions of the reviewers.

The advertising director first needs to determine the relative proportion of movie goers that choose to see Silver Screen films.  That will help him to understand his market share.  If the population in general is attending less, then he may still be out-profiting his competitors, despite his individual sales decrease.  In fact, his relative sales could be increasing.  Determining where he stands in his market will help him to create and implement an action plan.

Another important thing to consder is the relative cost of attending movies to the current standard of living.  If the standard of living is decreasing, it may contribute to an overall decrease in attendance.  In that case, advertising could be very helpful, in that a clever campaign could emphasize the low cost of movies as compared to many other leisure activities.  This could offset financial anxieties of potential customers.

Finally, it is important to remember that people rarely trust movie reviewers.  For that reason, it is important that the films appeal to the populus, and not critics alone.  The best advertisement in many cases is word of mouth.  No matter what critics say, people tend to take the opinions of friends more seriously.  This supports continual funding to produce quality movies that will appeal to the average person.

There is no reason that silver screen should not spend more on advertisement, however, there is reason to continue to invest in diverse, quality films.  Furthermore, the company must consider carefully what it chooses to emphasize in its advertisement.（改进措施）


COMMENTARY
Although the essay begins by stating that the argument "is relatively sound," it immediately goes on to develop a critique. （这种自相矛盾的话不要说！） The essay identifies three major flaws in the argument and provides a careful and thorough analysis.  The main points discussed are that

-- the fall-off in attendance might be industry wide
-- the general state of the economy might have affected movie
   attendance
-- movie goers "rarely trust movie reviewers"

Each of these points is developed; together they are presented within the context of a larger idea: that while spending more money on advertising may be helpful, the company should "continue to invest in diverse, quality films."

This is a smoothly written, well-developed analysis in which syntactic variety and the excellent use of transitions make for a virtually seamless essay.  This paper clearly merits a score of 6.

________________________________________

SAMPLE-2 (score 5)
The advertising director of Silver Screen should lose his job.  It is clear that his analysis of the decrease in attendance in the past year was incomplete.  A better qualified individual might have explored the issue further by doing several different things.  First of all, surveys of the general population could provide a clue to the decreased viewership. They may find that people aren't as willing to pay the high prices anymore.  A survey may also reveal that people are aware of Silver Screen, but opt not to see the films.  An inspection of the nature of the films made by Silver Screen could also hint（暗示，提示） to the root of the problem.  If Silver Screen produces a lot of the same type of movie, then the problem may be that they don't produce enough to appeal to the diverse interests of the population.  For instance,  if their movies typically contain excessive violence and foul language, parents won't take their children to these films.  That is a significant portion of the potential viewing population lost.

The ad director mentions that reviewers liked specific films and gave more  favorable reviews than in the past.  But he neglects to mention the specific numbers- critics may have raved about 2 movies and turned their thumbs down the 10 others.  If thats' the case, it's no wonder that viewership has declined.

Spending more on advertising, and less on production, as the ad director suggests, could drive the company out of business.  If the media builds alot of hype over a new release that was poorly produced, people are more likely to be disappointed, and skeptical about future productions.  This is certainly not in the company's best interests. What is in the company's best interest is a broader scope of the problem, and different approaches to solving I


COMMENTARY
This strong essay begins with an attack on the advertising director of Silver Screen but quickly shifts to identifying major flaws in the argument.（不要攻击作者）The main points of the critique are that

-- the real reasons for a decline in viewership have not yet been
   identified;
-- Silver Screen may not produce different kinds of movies to appeal to
   diverse interests;
-- the number of favorably reviewed movies may actually have been
   very low; and
-- spending money to produce a possibly poor movie would hurt rather
   than help the company.

Although more points are made here than are made in sample 6, each of the points made in the 6 essay is developed.  That is not the case here.  （点多不代表好，关键要展开！）In this essay, each point is supported (by perhaps an additional sentence), but it is not further developed.  The essay is smoothly organized with few but appropriate transitions.  The writing is strong with some variety in syntax.  For these reasons, this response earns a score of 5.

pewcg8UID：2143213

一、        字数的问题：
下面统计一下六个主题的官方范文的５，６分文章共１２篇的字数：
Topic1:
6—514        5—450
Topic2:
6—595        5—377
Topic3:
6—432        5--392
Topic4:
6—625        5—257
Topic5:
6—481        5—393
Topic6:
6—348        5—302
总结，字数看来不是主要影响得分的问题，５，６分的文章字数从２５７－６２５都有，这样的打字速度，我们都可以达到。但是可以看出一个很关键的问题，就是５分的文章的字数明显低于６分的文章，每个主题都是这样的规律，看来想拿六分，字数还是要够的，这是你论证展开充分的前提！而且经过进一步分析，对应主题４分以下的文章字数一样递减！
我们可以把３５０词定为５分作文的一个下限了。

二、        主要的收获：
１．        不要restate原文，现在开始不再使用in the argument……。经过分析范文，几乎所有的优秀文章开头都是三句话，指出问题，指出最关键的一步推论的问题，指出其他重要错误。Topic2的restate被批判成犹豫！Topic5的６分文章开头说原argument sound被批判为自相矛盾，（这个Topic1的５分也有这个问题，但是没有被指出）５分的直接攻击作者本人，被批判！
其他形式的开头：比如Topic3的６分开头指出了三个关键的flaws然后预测下文怎么展开。或者Topic１的６分只是展现了作者的推理思路，批驳留在正文。
２．        结尾比较好的都是提出了改进的意见。因此我决定结尾首先总结文章，最后提出改进的意见。
３．        段落和字数少的文章如果对主要问题自己展开分析，得５分是没问题的，如Topic4的５分，但是这必然是５分和６分的一个重要的区别。我决定：一是必须按照三段正文段写，不要写少于三个点，二是写的部分要一定要展开，这样至少保证５分。
４．        漏掉了主要错误，即使后面分析的再好，也只能得５分，漏了一个次要错误，不妨碍得６分。
５．        文章的各段的字数差距不要太大，否则会被认为批驳不充分！一旦提出一个问题，就要　分析透彻了。
６．        衔接不畅有一处，不影响６分，多了就保证不了。
７．        评分人还是比较注意文章的衔接的句式变换的。
８．        语法错误以三个为限。

三、        专项分析：
１．        各段的TS问题:

实例：
（１）        However, the citizens of Forestville are failing to consider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidents after the raise in speed limit.（这句是TS,提示我们可能要说的是关于increasing car accidents的other possible alternatives）然后紧接着就是such......衔接上去，最后全段都是在说这个alternatives.） Such alternatives may include the fact that there are less (这个就是所谓的minor grammar error) reliable cars traveling the roads in Forestville,(车况的不同) or that the age bracket（年龄限制） of those in Elmsford may be more conducive to driving safely. （驾驶者本身的情况不同） It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville than there are in Elmsford.  In addition, the citizens have failed to consider the geographical and physical terrain of the two different areas. （道路状况的不同） Perhaps Forestville's highway is in an area of more dangerous curves, sharp turns, or has many intersections or merging points where accidents are more likely to occur.  It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area.  Elmsford may be an area of easier driving conditions where accidents are less likely to occur regardless of the speed limit.（首先上来攻击类比的问题，其实可以看出来，作者根本没有用什么高深的逻辑学知识，就是以交通事故为核心，找出两个城镇在交通状况，驾驶员年龄以及车况这三个方面的不同，从而攻击原文作者在这里进行的类比．我的收获是，不是必须用摸版在这里写，只要层次分明的详细描述这两个town的区别就可以，这样的语言写的比较具体，否则搬摸版上来，显得比较抽象和＂虚＂）
（２）        Using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for natural parkland.(TS!) While (用连接词过度)all the members of the community could potentially benefit from a parkland, only a percentage of the population would realistically benefit from a new school. （本句解释“what”）The author fails to recognize people like the senior citizens of the community.  What interest do they have in a new school?  It only means higher taxes for them to pay.  They will likely never to and utilize the school for anything.  On the other hand, anyone can go to a park and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness.  The use of the land for a school would destroy the benefit of a park for everyone.  In turn, it would supply a school only to groups of people in exactly the right age range, not too young or too old, to reap the benefits.（解释“how”）。(一般在A中不用解释why.)
（３）        Even if one accepts the survey results, the argument remains questionable. (TS) The argument assumes that the correlation between the use of SMILEBRIGHT and capped teeth means that SMILE BRIGHT causes the need for capped teeth.(what!)  But the argument fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion.  In addition, the argument fails to consider the possibility that people who already have capped teeth might prefer SMILEBRIGHT as a toothpaste because it works better on capped teeth.(how)
（４）        First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear -- preventative gear (such as light reflecting material) and protective gear (such as helmets). (TS)Preventative gear is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the "other" is a responsible and caring individual who will afford（afford sb. sth.= provide） the skater the necessary space and attention. Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by an other, the skater or some force of nature.(what) Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial.(how)
经过总结，我发现了官方的范文一般段落的一个最常见的写法，TS不超过２０词，一般会直接说明本段要批驳的问题，或者指出问题的所在。接下来是说what,就是这个问题是什么，解释出来，然后就是how,说这个问题怎么错了，逻辑上，他因上怎么错了。一般没有why的部分，就是解释为什么错了。

因此，我的正文段组成为：
１．        TS,TS不要超过２５个词，尽量清楚简明．直接指出我本段要批驳的问题是什么就可以．用比较简练的话说明白．这个可以再总结总结，但是拒绝写的模式话，不准备采用模板．（注意是指出问题，具体问题的症结要后面分析，这里不用罗嗦）
２．        接下来就写所谓的＂what＂，这里包括两部分：
一是：what is the problem，就是直接承接TS,具体解释你认为这个问题是什么，这个问题是怎么在文章中表现出来的？
二是：what are your evidences/alternatives/other factors?
就是用你具体的说明解释这个问题．
３．        然后就是利用你的刚才说的问题和证据，证明＂how＂作者的论断是不合逻辑的．２，３部分最好写４－６句！
４．        最后总结一下上面说的问题．这个总结并不是必须的，因为在官方范文中几乎很少存在．


２．        对所有６０篇文章的分析没有发现以下词汇：
I concede, admittedly, to sum up, in sum, in conclusion, all in all
to conclude 出现在一篇４分文章的中部．
这些词汇都要避免使用．

[ 本帖最后由 pewcg8 于 2006-9-4 09:39 编辑 ]

pewcg8UID：2143213

关于官方范文分析全部发完．

jingjingtousUID：2164820

非常好，辛苦了！^_^

trista2007UID：2259203

这个帖子好  呵呵

haieryuUID：2291571

好帖子，谢谢了

yiran27UID：2201423

顶一个!

bluesoloUID：2301471

:loveliness: 谢谢了，收下，搂住辛苦了1！！！！~~~

Iris0907UID：2332406

谢谢,:loveliness:
正是我所需要的.

GokuUID：2209997

thx