在精华区里看到一篇非常有意思的贴子，标题为：arguement就应该这样写(二)！！！我本想在原文后回复，但发现已经没有”回复“的链接了，只好另开新贴。这篇有关Argument写法的贴子值得讨论，因为很多网友都受到很大震动，有的甚至因此而全盘推翻了自己以前对于Argument的理解，或者觉得自己以前的写法根本就不对路，得另辟他途。
其实在那个贴子中，有不少网友在激动之余，对作者的结论提出了疑问。我的观点与他们一致，只是想在这里将那些观点综合一下，再阐述得详细一些，以引起大家的思考。
原文非常长，我就不全盘照引，请参见：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-416323-1-1.html。在下面的说明过程中，我只部分引用原文。
Argument17: The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.
'Walnut Grove's town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ—which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks—has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance.'
线条以内的为作者原贴内容＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
这个文章的逻辑链是什么？？？
我同学，说的很简单
结论：we should continue using EZ
证据1：EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once
证据2：EZ—which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks—has ordered additional trucks
证据3：80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance.
作者提到：”首先，作者（Author of the editorial －－注）的结论基于一个没有被证实的前提1——TC仅仅因为EZ价格高而不选他。完全有可能有别的更重要的原因。”在这里，市政委员会以原公司涨价为由提议换公司，是这个Argument的一个事实，而不是没有证实的前提。当然市政委员会也完全可能有其他的理由，但它拿到桌面上来供市民讨论的就是这个理由，读者来信反驳时也是针对这个理由。试想，我们在写Argument时是要站在市政委员会一边，驳斥来信中的观点，维护自己的观点与论据。假如我们代表市政委员会来推动这个决定，如果有更有力的理由，为什么不早拿出来，要等遭到社论攻击的时候才说：”哦，我们主张换公司不仅是因为收费高的原因，其实我们有更重要的原因没说出来！“？这样不是把自己提出的论据给否定掉了吗？
ETS: 今天我们举行一场辩论，辩题是：”我们该换垃圾公司吗？“下面我们先请市政代表G友陈述自己的观点。
G友：The TC has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000.
ETS: 下面请市民代表陈述观点。
市民代表：But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ.
ETS: 你的理由是什么？
市民代表：我有三个理由：
First, EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once.
Moreover, EZ—which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks—has ordered additional trucks.
Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance.'
ETS: 现在请G友反驳。
G友：你的三个理由显然站不住脚，而且全是细枝末节，根本不值一驳。你怎么能肯定我提议换公司只是基于收费的原因呢？
ETS一愣，市民代表更是慌了：你刚才在陈述理由的时候不是这么说的吗？
G友：错了。我还有一个更重要的原因没说，那就是出于环保考虑……
市民代表当场昏厥，ETS也傻眼：这还叫辩论吗？
我想说明的是，我完全同意作者提出的关于Argu不能牵强附会的观点。但是将Argu提到必须要有思想的高度，这是不对的，尤其如果这种思想没有根据更是如此。Argu就是一个逻辑游戏，如此而已。ETS在Argu中考察的就是你发现逻辑漏洞并加以说明的能力，Argu不就是老的GRE考试中的逻辑部分吗？要说到思想，最好到issue中发挥。
有些网友看了作者的贴子后回复时说，自己反驳原题中的３个理由的确是走入了歧途。我想说：慢，你没有误入歧途，你做得是对的。为什么作者的文章使有些网友感到震撼？是因为他们可能觉得自己反驳得无力，尤其是作者提到了有的人犯下了“新增的卡车不一定是用来运垃圾的”这种强词夺理的错误。但Two wrongs don't make a right. 也就是说，对方错了，未见得你就是对的。
从原文来看，要驳斥读者来信当中的逻辑错误，就得从信中提到的3个理由入手：
1。 EZ公司10年来一直就是每周收两次垃圾，现在还是如此，为什么要涨价？而且有可能这个town生产的垃圾量并不大，每周一次就已经足够了。在不增加收费的情况下收两次当然好，但在涨价的情况下收一次也可以接受。
2。EZ公司增加卡车数量，有可能是为了拓展业务，但并不一定会改善对这个town的服务。如果它的服务并没有改善，比如依旧是每周收两次，那么它的车队有多大就是一个毫不相干(irrelevant)的问题，它的运营成本增加不能转嫁到消费者头上。
3。抽样调查有两个问题。一是这个调查的科学性与代表性，二是即使是大多数市民的确对EZ的服务表示满意，那也是在没有涨价的情况下。在价格达到一定的水准时，它有可能会成为最敏感的因素。
在这里想再说一下抽样调查的问题。作者认为对抽样调查提出疑问是牵强附会，我不敢苛同。抽样调查的科学性与代表性是逻辑错误中的一个大类，比如有的抽样调查样本太小，有的样本与总体之间并不是一回事，有的抽样调查中包含了诱导性的问题等等。在ETS的Argu题库中， 涉及抽样调查的不在少数。我们在现实生活中经常可以看到媒体引用有问题的抽样调查以支持自己的观点，如果不明白其中的问题所在就会被误导，比如有的海外媒体引用CNN的网上抽样调查报导说，大多数人支持日本入常。我不否认这有可能是事实(注意我说的是有可能)，但至少这样的抽样调查是不足为据的，CNN自己就声明这种调查是不科学的。什么时候抽样调查不用反驳呢？那就是抽样调查本身不是最主要的缺陷，你即使承认它也照样可以驳倒它的时候。区分一下逻辑漏洞的主次，有时候抽样调查是主要的，有时候则是次要的，根本用不着去驳。在这篇Argu中，抽样调查不能不提，否则内容不够。
"In Megalopolis, the number of law school graduates who went to work for large, corporate firms declined by 15 percent over the last three years, whereas an increasing number of graduates took jobs at small, general practice firms. Even though large firms usually offer much higher salaries, law school graduates are choosing to work for the smaller firms most likely because they experience greater job satisfaction at smaller firms. In a survey of first-year students at a leading law school, most agreed with the statement that earning a high salary was less important to them than job satisfaction. This finding suggests that the large, corporate firms of Megalopolis will need to offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work."
Even though large firms usually offer much higher salaries, law school graduates are choosing to work for the smaller firms most likely because they experience greater job satisfaction at smaller firms.
假如去掉前面有关数字的事实，光留下上面这句话，那么“毕业生自愿去小公司，因为在小公司工作更容易获得满足感。”是事实还是推测呢？一样，还是推测，因为毕业生自己没有说他们去小公司工作的原因是什么，而只是作者猜测的。假如再改一下变成：
Even though large firms usually offer much higher salaries, most law school graduates say they are choosing to work for the smaller firms because they experience greater job satisfaction at smaller firms. 这就变成给定的事实了，因为原因是毕业生自己说的。
Walnut Grove's town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000.
33.The following report appeared in an archaeology journal.
"The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric
sites scattered over a wide area has led archaeologists to ask how the
pots were spread. Some believe the pot makers migrated to the various
sites and carried the pots along with them; others believe the pots were
spread by trade and their makers remained in one place. Now, analysis of
the bones of prehistoric human skeletons can settle the debate: high
levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are
strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after
childhood. Many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed
high levels of the metallic element. Therefore, it must be that the pots
were spread by migration, not trade."
17. The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.
“Walnut Grove’s town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years
) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC’s fee is still $2,000.(前提) But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ.（结论） EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ-which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year’s town survey agreed that they were ‘satisfied’ with EZ’s performance.”（论据）
In this argument the author asserts that we should continue using EZ, with the evidence about the twice trash collection a week while ABC’s once, the trucks’ numbers and the order for new one, and a survey about its service’s satisfaction. However, a further scrutiny finds that the author has flaws, and he also fails to consider other factors leading council to choose the ABC.
To begin with, the trash in the Walnut Grove town might be not so much. In this sense, there is no need to collect twice a week. Second, EZ just ordered more trucks is not equal to that EZ has more trucks. Maybe, due to financial deficit, EZ will cancel this order. Also, it is possible that most of the 20 trucks of EZ are broken down now, while all ABC’s are working well. This is the reason why they ordered new trucks. Even if EZ will buy news trucks, again, maybe the old ones and the new ones together will be less than 20. Additionally, the survey itself is dubitable. It fails to provide more details, such as the sample and statistic. Without this details the survey is at least unconvincing.
Furthermore, even though the possibilities aforementioned are not real, and EZ is qualified. However, according to the condition of the town itself, ABC’s service is enough, and also reduces the fee of our town which can be used in other aspects such as education. Again, Maybe the council chooses the ABC not EZ because of their different way of disposing the trash-ABC adopts new method which is more beneficial for the environment, while EZ uses the old way which is endangering the environment. These are possibilities. After all, the council is represent of its people, and the fee is out of its people, so should think twice before using the money.
In sum up, the reason why council chooses ABC is not clear. However, we should do a further study to make it out, and then we can decide whether the council is wrong or not.