已加入自己逻辑分析！急求指点！915杀G，第一篇不限时A，610字
本帖最后由 YYangYY 于 2012-9-5 23:57 编辑The following appeared in a letter from a firm providinginvestment advice to a client.
"Homes in the northeastern United States, where winters aretypically cold, have traditionally used oil as their majorfuel for heating. Last year that region experienced twenty days withbelow-average temperatures, and local weather forecasters throughout the regionpredict that this weather pattern will continue for several more years.Furthermore, many new homes have been built in this region during the pastyear. Because of these developments, we predict an increased demand for heatingoil and recommend investment in Consolidated Industries, one of whose majorbusiness operations is the retail sale of home heating oil."
Write a response in whichyou discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how theevidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
In this argument the author predict that the demand for heating oil will increase in the following several years in northeastern United States and thus advice to invest Consolidated Industries, a company selling home heating oil. To support this recommendation, the author points out that last year there were twenty days below average temperature and weather type will continue in the future according to the weather forecast. In addition, the author infers that many new homes have been built last year. However, these alone do not constitute a logical argument in favor of his orher conclusion, and fail to provide convincing evidences to make this argumentsound and invulnerable.
To begin with, the author gives two unreasonable reasons relating with temperature of this region. First，he assumes that twenty days below average temperature means a relatively colder condition than usual, while no data about other years is provided in the argument to make it convincing. It is quite possible that last year was of the same temperature with or even warmer than other years, resulting in no more oil is needed. Secondly, the author presumptuously depends on the weather forecast which may be imprecise and usually don’t maintain giving thesame result in weather forecasting as time passes. Thus, a valid connection between future weather condition and the increase demand of heating oil is noteffectively made.
Another logical flaw is that the author fails to establish the causal relationship between the fact that many new homes have been built and the assumption that the demand of home heating oil will increase. It is unacceptable unless there is compelling evidence to support the nexus betweenthese two events. Perhaps, for example, these new built homes are only forvacation and people will live in them only in warmer seasons during whole year when no heating oil is needed. Regardless of the use of these homes, there maybe a trend that more people use electric-driven facilities, such as air conditioner,to warm themselves rather than oil in the future and consequently contribute to a huge decline of the amount of oil needed in the coming years. Without accounting for and ruling out the possibilities above, the author can not make the conclusion reliable.
Last but not the least, building upon a series of unwarranted predications the author concludes that the consumption of home heating oil will increase and thus advice to invest in Consolidated Industries. However, we donot know any other information about this company merely except that one of its major business operations is the retail sale of home heating oil. What advantage does this company has to guarantee it will beat its competitors? Other companies in this industry may be much more stronger than this one so that it can not make large money even if the demand of home heating oil will absolutely increase. Another point needed to be taken into consideration is that how this company treat its investors when really make fortune. The rate of return on investment in this company may be so low to make it a unwise option to choose for investment.
To sum up, the author’s conclusion and recommendation are not based on valid evidence and sound reasoning. To make the conclusion more convincing, the author would have to provide more information with regard to the temperature condition in this area and the CI company. Moreover, the author would have to make it compelling that homes builtin the past year will rise the demand of heating oil. Without remedying these holes above, the author could not convince the reader to follow his or her advice.
第一篇不限时Argu，610字。1，感觉逻辑错误合并不够合理，不知道这样合并攻击是否合适。
2，再者字数太多，６１０，不知如何删减，是否太罗嗦不够流畅？太多了到时也怕写不完。。
最主要的问题是，我把
1，去年跟往年比可能不算冷的一年
2，天气预测可能不准
合并为关于天气的错误假设，放在攻击的第一段。
3，房子可能度假时才住
4，以后可能会用其他的方式取暖
合并为第二段攻击
5，公司背景不明，可能抵不过竞争对手
6，公司即使赚钱可能对股东投资回报不高
合并为第三段攻击
这种合并方式合理么，我总觉得怪怪的？
每段两个错误一起说好呢，还是抓住一个深入展开讨论好呢？两个一起说会不会导致讨论浅显？
急求指点呀。。。多谢！
顶一个！坐等指点啊 撸过问你写的是新G吗。。。
discuss what specific evidence is needed你讨论了吗？ Basilisk 发表于 2012-9-6 03:16 static/image/common/back.gif
撸过问你写的是新G吗。。。
discuss what specific evidence is needed你讨论了吗？
愿闻其详！这个introduction，应该怎么写才能符合新G 标准？ YYangYY 发表于 2012-9-6 21:52 static/image/common/back.gif
愿闻其详！这个introduction，应该怎么写才能符合新G 标准？
自己看OG。。。
页:
[1]