嘉文博译的Argument范文（整理版）浏览+下载

imongUID：140258

argument193

The Department of Education in the state of Attra recommends that high school students be assigned homework every day. Yet a recent statewide survey of high school math and science teachers calls the usefulness of daily homework into question. In the district of Sanlee, 86 percent of the teachers reported assigning homework three to five times a week, whereas in the district of Marlee, less than 25 percent of the teachers reported assigning homework three to five times a week. Yet the students in Marlee earn better grades overall and are less likely to be required to repeat a year of school than are the students in Sanlee. Therefore, all teachers in our high schools should assign homework no more than twice a week, if at all.

In this argument, the arguer concludes that all teachers in his or her town’s high schools should assign homework no more than twice a week, if at all. The arguer bases the argument on a statewide survey showing that in the district of Sanlee, eighty-six percent of the teachers reported assigning homework three to five times a week while less than twenty-five percent of the teachers reported assigning homework three to five times a week. The arguer claims that despite this, students in Marlee earn better grades overall and are less likely to be required to repeat a year of school than are students in Sanlee. This argument is unconvincing because the arguer ignores several possible reasons other than the number of days that homework is assigned for these discrepancies.

First of all, the survey only contacted high school math and science teachers, not high school teachers in general. It is possible that there is a difference in homework assignments given by the two different districts because of a difference in subject emphasis. For example, perhaps Sanlee focuses more on science and math than Marlee and therefore requires more homework assignments of its students. A survey that covers only two subject areas in only two school districts is hardly convincing that all teachers should assign less homework.

Secondly, it is possible that homework assignments in Marlee are more extensive than those given in Sanlee, perhaps taking two or three days to complete. If the homework assignments take longer to complete, the teachers in Marlee would naturally assign homework less often, although the overall amount of homework completed would be the same as in Sanlee. Ignoring the length and difficulty of the homework that is assigned in the two different districts further weakens the argument. Simply assigning homework on more days does not necessarily mean that the total amount of homework is any different between the two school districts.

Furthermore, it is possible that the students themselves have differing levels of academic ability in Sanlee as opposed to Marlee. School districts can have a vastly different composition of students that directly affect overall grade results and whether students are more likely to be required to repeat a year of school. Students in the Marlee district may simply be brighter students than those in Sanlee, thus explaining the differences in overall grades and failure rates – it could have nothing to do with how much homework is assignment. Failing to address this possibility further weakens the argument.

Finally, it is also possible that the grading system itself is easier for the students in Marlee as opposed to the system in Sanlee. The students may be of equal academic skills, but Marlee’s grading system by design may give higher marks to students than Sanlee’s system. Furthermore, Marlee may have a policy that students never have to repeat a school year, regardless of their marks, while Sanlee may be stricter in this regard. Again, the number of days that homework is assigned has nothing to do with the student’s success; it is simply a function of the differing grading systems.

In summary, this argument is based on a very narrow study of only two subjects, in two school districts, with ambiguous results. To strengthen the argument, the arguer needs to directly compare all aspects of the two different districts with his or her own school district before jumping to the conclusion that all teachers in the district should assign homework no more than twice a week, if at all.

(590 words)

参考译文


[题目]

Attra州教育厅建议，高中学生应该每天被布置做家庭作业。但是最近对高中数学和科学教师的一项全州范围的调查对每天做家庭作业的作用提出质疑。在三里区，百分之八十六的老师说每周布置三到五次作业，而在马里区，不到百分之二十五的老师说每周布置三到五次作业。但是马里区的学生总体成绩却比三里区的学生好而且较少需要留级。因此，我们高中所有老师如果真要给学生留作业的话，每周最多不应该超过两次。


[范文正文]

在这一论证中，论证者说到，其城市里所有高中老师每周最多只应给学生布置两次作业，倘若真要留作业的话。他/她的论证是基于一次全州范围的调查，该调查说三里区百分之八十六的老师每周布置三到五次家庭作业，而在马里区不到百分之二十五的老师每周布置三到五次家庭作业。论证者声称，尽管这样，马里区的学生总体成绩比三里区的好，而且较少需要留级。这一论证没有说服力，因为论证者忽视了其他几个可能的原因，而仅仅列举了留家庭作业的天数作为学生差距的原因。

首先，调查只涉及高中数学和科学教师，而不是普遍的高中教师。很可能，由于两区对科目重视不同而造成家庭作业不同。例如，或许三里区比马里区更强调数学和科学，从而要求给学生布置更多的家庭作业。仅从一个或两个区两个科目的调查就得出结论，说所有教师应该少布置家庭作业，这是不能让人信服的。

第二，很可能，马里区的家庭作业比三里区的范围更广泛，或许需要花两三天才能完成。如果家庭作业需要花更长的时间完成，马里区的老师自然就会减少布置作业的次数，尽管所完成的家庭作业的总量会与三里区的相同。由于忽视两区所布置作业的数量和困难程度，该论证的力度遭到进一步削弱。仅仅留作业次数多，并不必然意味着两区的家庭作业的总量有何不同。

再者，很可能三里和马里两学区的学生学术能力程度不同。不同的学区可能具有完全不同的学生构成，这直接影响到学生的总体成绩以及学生是否更可能需要留级重读。马里区的学生可能比三里区的学生更聪明些，因此可以解释两区在总体成绩和不及格率方面的诸多差异——这些差异可能与家庭作业的数量毫无关系。由于没有探讨这种可能性，该论证显得苍白无力。

最后，还有可能马里区学生的评分标准比三里区的较为容易。学生的学习能力可能是相同的，但马里区设计的评分标准给学生评定的分数可能会比三里区的高。此外，马里区可能有一项政策，即不管学生成绩如何，都不必留级重读，而三里区在这方面可能较为严格。再一次，留作业的数量与学生的成绩无关；这只是由于不同的评分标准所致。

总之，这一论证只是以两个学区对两门课程范围很窄的调查为基础，而且其调查结果也含混不清。为了加强其论证，论证者需要将这两个不同学区的所有方面与他/她所在的学区进行直接比较，而不是简单地得出结论说，其学区所有的教师都应该每周只布置两次家庭作业，如果真要留作业的话。

imongUID：140258

argument194
A recent study suggests that people who are left-handed are more likely to succeed in business than are right-handed people. Researchers studied photographs of 1,000 prominent business executives and found that 21 percent of these executives wrote with their left hand. So the percentage of prominent business executives who are left-handed (21 percent) is almost twice the percentage of people in the general population who are left-handed (11 percent). Thus, people who are left-handed would be well advised to pursue a career in business, whereas people who are right-handed would be well advised to imitate the business practices exhibited by left-handers.

This arguer claims that a recent study suggests that left-handed people are more likely to succeed in business than right-handed people. For support, the arguer cites the results of a study where researchers studied photographs of one thousand prominent business executives and found that twenty-one percent wrote with their left hand. The arguer claims that the percentage of left-handed prominent business executives is almost twice that of left-handed people in the general population (eleven percent). The arguer then concludes that left-handed people should pursue a career in business while right-handed people should copy the business practices of left-handed people. This argument fails to convince on its premise because it is based on faulty reasoning.

First of all, there are problems with the research study itself. By studying only photographs rather than the actual people, there are two errors that may occur in drawing conclusions regarding which hand the subjects actually use to write. It is possible that although they were photographed with a pen in their left hand or apparently writing with their left hand, the business executives are in reality right-handed or ambidextrous. Merely looking at photographs is a poor substitute for actually observing or interviewing the business executives. Furthermore, in many cases with photographs, the negatives have been reversed when the photograph is printed, thereby reversing right and left. Although it may appear that the business executive is writing with his or her left hand, in reality he or she may have been using the right hand instead, or vice versa. The possibility of flaws in the research study itself critically weakens this argument.

Secondly, the arguer’s contention that the study suggests that people who are left-handed are more likely to succeed in business is wrong. Even assuming the accuracy of the study, only twenty-one percent of prominent business executives were said to write with their left hands. The vast majority of seventy-nine percent of prominent business executives wrote with their right hands. Simple mathematics shows that there are more right-handed prominent business executives than left-handed ones. Moreover, being a “prominent” business executive does not necessarily equal success in business. The arguer has framed the definition of success in business as becoming a “prominent business executive” when there are many other valid definitions of what makes one a success in business. One certainly does not have to be “prominent” nor a “business executive” to be successful in business. Failing to address these features of the research study further weakens this argument.

Finally, it simply does not follow that left-handed people should pursue a career in business and that right-handed people should imitate the business practices of left-handers. There are far too many other variables involved with success in business than solely which hand a person writes with. Inner-motivation, perseverance and just plain good luck are far more likely indicators of an individual’s success in business. To pursue any type of career or particular business practices based on such a flawed and ambiguous study would be the height of foolishness.

To summarize, the value of the research study itself is highly questionable because it is based on merely looking at photographs, which may be misleading. Furthermore, the arguer uses percentages that are not directly comparable with each other to attempt to show a correlation between which hand a person writes with and potential success in business. This argument is tenuous at best and should be rejected without better, more convincing evidence submitted for support.

(581 words)

参考译文


[题目]

最近的一项调查表明，习惯用左手的人比习惯用右手的人更可能在企业里取得成功。研究人员研究了1000位优秀的企业主管的照片，发现百分之二十一的主管用左手写字。而习惯用左手的优秀企业主管的比率(21%)几乎是习惯用右手的总人数的比率(11%)的一倍。因此，那些习惯用左手的人应该在企业求职，而对于习惯用右手的人来说，模仿习惯用左手的人所表现出来的商业做法不失为一项明智之举。


[范文正文]

这位论证者声称，最近的一项调查表明，习惯用左手的人比习惯用右手的人更有可能在企业里取得成功。为了支持其论点，论证者引用了一项调查的结果，说研究人员研究了1000位优秀企业主管的照片，发现其中21%的人用左手写字。论证者说道，习惯用左手的优秀企业主管的比率几乎是习惯用右手的总人数的比率(11%)的一倍。论证者然后得出结论：习惯用左手的人应该在企业谋职而习惯用右手的人应该模仿用左手的人的商业行为。这一论证没能在其前提上令人信服，因为它是建立在错误的推理基础之上。

首先，该项研究本身不乏某些问题。由于只研究人的照片而不是研究实际的人，因此，围绕着受试者实际用哪只手来写字，在得出结论时将会产生两种谬误。情况有可能是，尽管他们在拍照时左手持笔，或表面上作出左手写字的模样，这些企业主管们实际上却是惯于使右手的，或者是两手都善用的。只看相片，远比不上实际观察或面试这些企业主管。此外，就这些相片而言，在许多情况下，在相片冲洗时，底片被颠倒，从而将左右弄反。虽然给人的印象是某位企业主管正用其左手写字，但实际上他/她可能正好相反，所使用的却是右手。反之亦然。这项研究本身所有可能存在的缺陷严重削弱了本项论述。

其次，论述者所提出的论点，即该项研究表明惯于使左手的人更易于取得商业成功。这本身就是谬误的。即使假设该项研究精确无误，但也仅有21%的杰出企业主管据称使用左手写字。占79%的绝大多数著名企业主管使用右手写字。进行简单的数学计算就可表明，善使右手的杰出企业主管在数量上远超过善使左手的企业主管。除此之外，做一个杰出的企业主管并不必然等同于商业成功。当何谓“商业成功”实际上存在着如许多其他有效定义的时候，论述者对商业成功所下的定义却将其仅限于“成为一个杰出的企业主管”。毫无疑问，要取得商业成功，人们既没有必要成为“杰出人物”，也没有必要成为“企业主管”。该项研究由于没能探讨这些方面的内容而使论证缺乏力度。

最后，有一点是不合逻辑的，即凡是左撇子都应该追求一种商界生涯，而右撇子就应该去模仿左撇子的商业实践。商业成功涉及到许许多多其他可变性因素，而决非仅仅限制在惯于使用哪只手的问题。内在的动机、锲而不舍的精神以及好运气等更有可能来表明一种商业上的成功。如果以这样一种存在严重缺陷且又模棱两可的研究为依据去追求任何类型的职业生涯或某些特定的商业实践，将不啻于是愚蠢至极。

概而言之，该项研究的价值令人极感疑惑，因为它仅仅以看相片这一有可能产生误导作用的行为来作为其依据。其次，论述者使用了相互间并不具有直接可比性的两组百分比以期证明，在一个人写字时所使用的左手或右手与其商业上的潜在成败之间存在着某种逻辑联系。本项论述充其量也是极为薄弱的，在不能提供更为充分且更有说服力的证据来支持它的情况下应彻底予以摈弃。

imongUID：140258

argument195
The following is a letter from an editor at Liber Publishing Company to the company's president.

"In recent years, Liber has unfortunately moved away from its original mission: to publish the works of regional small-town authors instead of those of big-city authors. Just last year, 90 percent of the novels we published were written by authors who maintain a residence in a big city. Although this change must have been intended to increase profits, it has obviously backfired, because Liber is now in serious financial trouble. The only way to address this problem is to return to our original mission. If we return to publishing only the works of regional small-town authors, our financial troubles will soon be resolved."


The writer in this argument is an editor claiming that Liber Publishing Company has moved away from its original mission of publishing the writing of regional small-town authors instead of big-city authors. As evidence, the editor states that authors who maintain a residence in a big city wrote ninety percent of the novels published by the company last year. The writer further claims that the change must have been intended to increase profits but that it has backfired as Liber is now in serious financial trouble. The writer concludes that the only way to fix the problem is to return to only publishing the works of regional small-town authors. This argument is full of weaknesses that should leave the president of Liber unconvinced.

The main problem with this argument is that one is left unsure of what exactly is the definition of “regional small-town authors.” The writer gives no clear definition and the only indication of what makes an author a regional small-town author is when he or she mentions that ninety percent of the novels published last year were written by authors who “maintain a residence in a big city”. It does make sense that authors who have been published would be able to afford a residence in a big city because they have already gained a certain level of success simply by having been published. Perhaps they actually live in a small-town but maintain a big city residence for business purposes for use during promotional appearances, etc. However, the editor fails to indicate whether the big city residences are these authors’ sole residences or whether they also maintain a residence in a small town, and whether that makes a difference in their individual categorization. If they also have a small-town residence, does this make them “regional small-town authors”? If a person was born and raised in New York City but moved to a small town in Oklahoma six months ago, does that make them a regional small-town author? The writer’s failure to define what exactly is a regional small-town author critically weakens this argument.

Moreover, the editor maintains that returning to publishing only the works of small-town regional authors is the only way to address Liber’s serious financial problems. Certainly there are other options available to the company to make it financially stable. It does not follow that simply returning to some idealistic mission will automatically lead to a solution to the company’s financial problems. What the company needs are profits – through publishing books that sell well regardless of whether the author is from a small town or a big city, or by reducing costs so that current revenue is enough to maintain a profit. Profitability is not directly tied to whether the company publishes only works by regional small-town authors - in fact, that would appear to be a sure way to further reduce profitability by restricting the scope of the company’s business. Stating that publishing only regional small-town authors is the only way to address the company’s financial problems further weakens the argument.

In summary, the editor’s argument ultimately fails because there is no basis in fact for his or her conclusion. To make the argument stronger and more believable, the editor should present direct evidence that the company has lost sales by moving away from its original mission. The writer must also prove that there is a sufficient market available to the company for selling regional small-town authors’ works that would actually resolve the financial troubles of Liber Publishing Company.
(593 words)


参考译文


[题目]

下述文字摘自Liber出版公司的一位编辑致公司总裁的一封信函：

“在最近几年中，Liber公司已经很不幸地背离了它原初的使命：出版和发行地方性小镇作家的作品，而非大都市作家的作品。仅在去年我们所出版的小说中，有90%是由那些在大城市中维持居住状况的作家创作的。尽管这一变化旨在增加盈利，但它显然适得其反，因为Liber公司现已陷入严重的财务危机。解决这一问题的唯一途径是回归到我们原初的使命。如果我们重新开始只出版地方性小镇作家的作品，我们的财务麻烦便会很快迎刃而解。”


[范文正文]

本项论述的作者是位编辑，据他宣称，Liber出版公司背离了其原初只出版地方性小镇作家而非大城市作家作品的使命。作为证据，这位编辑陈述道，在大城市居住的作家所创作的作品占到了该出版公司去年一年中所出版的小说总数的90％。这位作者进一步宣称，这一变化虽意欲增加公司的利润但却适得其反，因为Liber公司现在已陷入严重的财务危机。这位作者最后的结论是，解决这一问题的唯一方法是重返只出版地方性小镇作家的作品这条老路上去。这一论述中充斥着种种薄弱之处，不足以使Liber出版公司的总裁信服。

这项论述的主要问题在于，我们无法确切地知道何谓“地方性小镇作家”。作者没有给出明晰的定义，而唯一能表明一位作家何以是一位地方性小镇作家的地方是当这位作者（或论是他还是她）提及，去年所出版的小说中，有90％是由那些在“大城市中维持居住状况的”作家创作的。我们的理解是，那些出版过作品的作家应该有足够的经济实力在大城市中居住和生活，因为纯粹通过出版作品他（她）们早就获得了一定程度上的成功。或许，他们实际上居住在小镇上，但却出于商业目的而维持一种大城市的居住状态，例如用于出版物促销期间在公众面前露面，等等。然则，这位编辑没能明确指出，在大城市的寓所是否是这些作家唯一的寓所，还是说这些作家也在小镇上维持居住状态，还是说这一点在这些作家各自的范畴划分中果真有所差异。如果他们也拥有一处小镇寓所，这能使他们成为“地方性小镇作家”吗？如果有一个人出生于纽约市但在6个月前移居到俄克拉何马州的一座小镇，这是否能使他成为一个地方性小镇作家呢？作者由于没能确切地对何为“地方性小镇作家”进行定义，故严重地削弱了其论点。

此外，这位编辑坚持认为，回到仅出版地方性小镇作家的作品这条老路是解决Liber出版公司严重财政问题的唯一出路。勿容置疑，对于该公司来说，不乏其它一些选择途径来使它在财政方面保持稳定。仅仅回归到某种理想主义式的使命就能自然而然地导致公司财政问题的解决，这并不合乎逻辑。该公司真正需要的是利润——或者是通过出版那些能够畅销的书，不管其作者来自一座小镇还是来自一座大都市；或者是通过减缩成本，以便使目前的收益足以来维持一定的利润水平。盈利能力与该公司是否仅出版地方性小镇作家的作品并不直接相关。事实上，限制公司的业务范围，这似乎肯定会进一步降低该公司的盈利能力。作者所作的陈述，即仅出版地方性小镇作家的作品是解决公司财政问题的唯一出路，进一步削弱了其所作的论述。

归纳而言，这位编辑的论述最终无法站得住脚，因为没有任何事实依据来支持其结论。若要使其论点更具力度且更为可信，这位编辑应该摆出直接的证据来证明，他（或她）所在的公司是因为偏离了其原初的使命而导致销售下降的。这位作者还必须证明，对于该公司而言，存在着一个足够大的市场，以销售那些可在实际上解决Liber出版公司财政困境的地方性小镇作家的作品。

imongUID：140258

argument

The country Myria, which charges fees for the use of national parks, reports little evidence of environmental damage. This strongly suggests that for the country Illium, the best way to preserve public lands is to charge people more money when they are using national parks and wilderness areas for activities with heavy environmental impact. By collecting fees from those people who overuse public lands, Illium will help preserve those lands for present and future generations.

In this argument, the arguer states that the country of Myria charges fees for the use of national parks and reports little evidence of environmental damage. The arguer cites this as a strong indicator that the country of Illium should charge people more money for activities with heavy environmental impact when they are using national parks and wilderness areas. The arguer further states that by collecting fees from people who overuse public lands, Illium will help preserve those lands for present and future generations. This argument is unconvincing because it suffers from a lack of evidence and problematic reasoning.

To begin with, there is no supporting evidence that the countries of Myria and Illium have the same types of national parks or that they are comparable in any other manner. It is possible that Myria is a sparsely populated country with very few visitors to its national parks, while Illium may be heavily populated with millions of visitors to its national parks. For example, it is possible that Myria’s national parks are not attractive to its own residents or tourists while Illium’s national parks may be wildly popular with visitors. With few visitors to Myria, it is unlikely that there would be much evidence of environmental damage. Furthermore, the arguer states that the country of Myria reports little evidence of environmental damage, whether to its national parks or otherwise. There may actually be tremendous environmental damage in Myria that the country simply does not report for political or economic reasons, for example.

In addition, there is no mention of how much the country of Myria charges as fees for the use of national parks. Their fees may actually be dramatically lower than what Illium is already charging as fees to use its national parks. The simple fact that Myria charges a fee for using its national parks does not suggest that Illium should charge more money when using national parks and wilderness areas for activities with heavy environmental impact – this is not logical reasoning. Moreover, Illium may already be charging a very high fee for this type of park use – simply charging more may not make any difference as far as how the areas are used.

Finally, the most glaring flaw in this argument lies with the reasoning in the last sentence. The arguer states that by collecting fees from people who overuse public lands, Illium will help preserve those lands for present and future generations. The fact of the matter is that simply collecting fees from people who overuse public lands will do nothing to preserve the lands – the fees must be used in some constructive manner to actively protect those particular environmental areas. The argument is fatally weakened by merely calling for the collection of such fees without indicating how those fees will be spent to safeguard the future of the national parks and wilderness areas of Illium.

In summary, the arguer bases his or her argument on scant evidence and a false analogy between two possibly very different countries. Very little factual information is included in the argument to persuade the reader that charging park users more money for activities with heavy environmental impact will prevent environmental damage in the country of Illium. Furthermore, proposing that simply collecting higher fees from people who overuse public lands will conserve such lands critically weakens the argument. Without presenting concrete evidence that shows a direct correlation between collecting higher park usage fees and the country’s ability to preserve its national parks and wilderness areas, the argument fails to deliver on its premise and should be rejected.

(603 words)


参考译文


[题目]

对使用国家公园实施收费政策的Myria国，据称几乎找不到毁坏环境的迹象。这有力地表明，对于Illium国来说，保护公共土地的最佳方法是，当人们使用国家公园和野地从事某些会带来沉重环境后果的活动时，就应该向这些人收取更多的费用。通过向那些过度使用公共土地的人们征收费用，Illium国将能为目前和未来的人类后代保护好这些土地。


[范文正文]

在本项论述中，论述者称，Myria国对使用国家公园实行收费，且几乎不存在环境遭毁坏的迹象。论述者将此援引为一种强有力的标志，说明Illium国应该向人们收取更多的费用，以同意人们在使用国家公园和荒郊野地时可从事某些会产生沉重环境后果的活动。论述者进一步称，通过向那些过度使用公共土地的人们征收费用，Illium国就能为目前和未来的人类后代保护好这些土地。以上的这番论述难以令人置信，因为它为证据的缺乏和成问题的逻辑推理所累。

首先，没有任何佐证性证据能表明，Myria国和Illium国拥有相同类型的国家公园，或者这两个国家在任何方面具有可比性。情况有可能是，Myria国是一个人口稀少的国家，前往国家公园游玩的游客寥寥无几，而Illium国则有可能人口众多，有数以百万计的游客会去游览国家公园。例如，Myria国的国家公园可能对本国居民或旅游者不具吸引力，但Illium国的国家公园却可能广受游客们的喜爱。由于Myria国游客稀少，毁坏环境的迹象自然就不太可能出现。此外，论述者称，Myria国据报道几乎没有任何环境遭破坏的证据，无论是对其国家公园还是对于其他地方。实际上，Myria国可能发生过巨大的环境破坏，只不过出于诸如政治或经济的原因而没有将其公诸于众罢了。

此外，文中没能提及Myria国对使用国家公园究竟收取了多少费用。它所收取的费用可能要比Illium国早就在收取的国家公园使用费远低得多。Myria国对使用国家公园收取费用，这一事实本身并不意味着Illium国就应该收取更多的费用，以同意人们在使用国家公园和荒郊野地时可从事某些会带来沉重环境后果的活动。如果这样的话，这绝不是一种合乎逻辑的推理。除此之外，Illium国有可能对这类公园用途早就在收取一种非常高昂的费用。纯粹收取更高的费用，无论土地如何被使用，均无法显示出任何差别。

最后，这段论述中最为突出的漏洞在于最后一句中的逻辑推理。论述者宣称，通过向过度使用公共土地的人征收费用，Illium国将有助于为目前和未来的人类后代保护好这些土地。整个问题的关键事实在于，单纯向过度使用公共土地的人征收费用对于保护土地而言无济于事——这些费用应该以某种富有建设性的方式积极用来保护这些特定的环境区域才会有益。如此看来，这项论述受到了致命的削弱，因为它仅仅号召去征收这些费用，却并不表明，这些费用将如何被用来保护Illium国的国家公园和荒郊野地的未来。

总而言之，论述者将其论点建立在极为贫乏的证据和两个可能是迥然有别的国家之间的某种虚假类比之上。论述中几乎不含有任何事实性的信息来使读者相信，向使用公园者收取更多的费用，以同意他们从事某些带有沉重环境后果的活动，这样做就可以防止Illium国的环境遭到破坏。此外，论述者所提出的建议，即仅靠向过度使用公共土地的人们征收更高的费用将有助于保护这些土地，又极其严重地削弱了此项论述。如果不拿出确凿的证据来证明，收取较高公园使用费与该国保护其国家公园和荒郊野地的能力之间存在着直接关联，那么，这一论述便无法论证其命题，故应予摈弃。

imongUID：140258

argument202

Humans arrived in the Kaliko Islands about 7,000 years ago, and within 3,000 years most of the large mammal species that had lived in the forests of the Kaliko Islands had become extinct. Yet humans cannot have been a factor in the species' extinctions, because there is no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the mammals. Further, archaeologists have discovered numerous sites where the bones of fish had been discarded, but they found no such areas containing the bones of large mammals, so the humans cannot have hunted the mammals. Therefore, some climate change or other environmental factor must have caused the species' extinctions.

In this argument, the arguer states that humans arrived on the Kaliko islands seven thousand years ago and within three thousand years, most of the large mammal species that had lived in the forests there had become extinct. The arguer attempts to convince the reader that it was not humans that caused the extinction but that it was climate change or some other environmental factor that caused the species’ extinction. For support, the arguer claims that there is no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the animals. The arguer also claims that archaeologists have discovered numerous sites where fish bones have been discarded but no such areas containing the bones of large mammals; therefore humans could not have hunted the mammals. This argument unconvincingly attempts to apply ambiguous evidence to prove the point but fails to address other possibilities that explain such evidence.

In the first place, the arguer states that humans cannot have been a factor simply because there is no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the mammals. Simple logic would indicate that significant contact was likely. First of all, an island is a closed environment so it is likely that humans and the mammals would be forced to interact at some point during their four thousand year period of coexistence. Secondly, a lack of evidence after thousands of years have passed does not mean that humans cannot have been a factor – such evidence could have easily disintegrated or disappeared over such a long time. Finally, assuming that there was no significant contact between humans and mammals, the humans could have caused the mammals extinction without ever even touching them by destroying their food sources or natural habitats. Many species today are facing extinction due not to the animals being killed by humans, but by the elimination of their food sources and living environments. Failing to address these possibilities critically weakens the argument.

Furthermore, the arguer cites numerous sites where archaeologists have uncovered discarded fish bones, but that the archaeologists have found no such areas containing the bones of large mammals; therefore indicating that humans cannot have hunted the animals. Again, the arguer jumps to an illogical conclusion by failing to address other possibilities explaining the situation. First of all, it is possible that the humans did indeed hunt the large mammals for food, and ate the bones as well so that none were left behind as evidence. Many cultures today eat the bones (as well as all other parts) of mammals so it is a distinct possibility that there was simply nothing left of the mammals to be found by the archaeologists. Another possibility is that the humans discarded the bones in another manner where they could not be found by archaeologists, perhaps by burning them or throwing them into the ocean. The mere lack of a site containing the bones of large mammals proves nothing. By ignoring these other very viable possibilities, the argument again fails to convince.

In summary, the arguer jumps to the conclusion that humans cannot have been responsible for the extinction of the large mammals of the Kaliko Islands based on ambiguous evidence that does not prove anything with certainty. To make the argument stronger, the arguer should include direct evidence that proves that humans did not hunt the animals to extinction, nor did they destroy the mammals’ food supplies and natural habitat. Without such information, the argument is pure speculation and nothing more than a statement of the arguer’s opinion.

(591 words)


参考译文


[题目]

人类约在7,000年之前抵达Kaliko群岛，在3,000年不到的时间内大多数栖息在Kaliko群岛森林中的大型哺乳动物物种已宣告灭绝。然而，人类的存在不可能是导致这些物种灭绝的一个因素，因为没有任何证据可证明人类与哺乳动物之间有过任何重大的接触。此外，考古学家还发现了多个有鱼骨遭弃置的遗址，但他们却没有发现含有大型哺乳动物骨头的这类遗址，故人类不可能曾猎杀过哺乳动物。因此，肯定是某种气候变迁或其他的环境因素导致了这些物种的灭绝。


[范文正文]

在以上述论中，论述者称，人类在7,000年之前就已抵达Kaliko群岛，而在不到3,000年的时间内大多数栖息在Kaliko群岛森林中的大型哺乳动物物种便已宣告灭绝。论述者试图让读者相信，导致这一灭绝的因素不是人类，而是某种气候变迁或者其他某些环境因素。为了提供依据，论述者宣称，没有任何证据可证明人类曾与动物有过重大的接触。论述者此外还宣称，考古学家已发现了多处鱼骨遭弃置的遗址，但却没有发现含有大型哺乳动物骨头的这类遗址；因此，人类不曾猎杀过哺乳动物。这一论断难以令人信服地试图用模棱两可的证据来证明其论点，但却没能探讨有可能解释这类证据的其他可能性。

首先，论述者宣称，人类不可能是动物灭绝的一个因素，仅仅是因为没有证据能表明人类曾与哺乳动物有过重大的接触。哪怕是最简单的逻辑推理便可表明重大的接触有可能发生过。首先，任何一座岛屿均是一个封闭的环境，因此人类和动物有可能在其共处的4,000年期间的某些时候被迫发生过互动。其次，在数千年的时间已过去之后，证据的缺乏并不意味着人类不可能成为动物灭绝的一个因素——这类证据可能在如此漫长的时间内已经很容易地消散或消失。最后，即使假定人类和哺乳动物之间真的没有过重大的接触，人类也可以在甚至根本不触及哺乳动物的情况下，通过破坏其食物来源或自然栖息地而导致它们的灭绝。时至今日，许多物种濒临灭绝，不是因为动物正在遭到人类的捕杀，而是因为它们的食物来源和生存环境正在被毁灭。该项论述因没有探讨这些可能性而遭到削弱。

此外，论述者还列举了考古学家已发现存在鱼骨的多处遗址，但同时又指出考古学家根本没有发现含有大型哺乳动物骨头的这类遗址。据此，论述者指出人类不可能猎杀过动物。这里，论述者再度过于轻率地得出了一个有悖逻辑的结论，因为他（或她）没能去探讨有可能解释这一情形的其他可能性。首先，人类有可能确实猎杀过大型哺乳动物以获取食物，并把动物的骨头一起吃掉，因此就没有任何骨头遗留下来可充当证据。在当今社会的许多文化中，人们都有吃哺乳动物的骨头（以及身体的所有其他部分）的习俗，因此，一个显著的可能性便是，哺乳动物身上就只能没有任何东西遗留下来供考古学家去发现。另一种可能性是，人类以另一种方式来弃置动物的骨头，从而使考古学家无从发现，可能是将骨头焚毁，或丢入大海。缺乏含有大型哺乳动物骨头的遗址，纯粹这一点不能证明什么。由于忽略了这样一些甚为可行的其他可能性，这一论断又一次无法令人信服。

总而言之，论述者过于草率地得出结论，说人类对Kaliko群岛大型哺乳动物的灭绝不负有责任，因为它所依据的是无法确凿证明任何东西的模棱两可的证据。若要使这段论述更具力度，论述者应该囊括直接的证据来证明，人类没有将动物猎杀到灭绝的境地，并证明人类也没有破坏哺乳动物的食物供给和野外栖息地。没有此类信息，该段论述纯属臆想和推测，所陈述的仅是论述者的主观看法而已。

imongUID：140258

argument203

The following appeared in a newspaper feature story.

"At the small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda, the average length of a patient's stay is two days; at the large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville, the average patient stay is six days. Also, the cure rate among patients in the Saluda hospital is about twice that of the Megaville hospital. The Saluda hospital has more employees per patient than the hospital in Megaville, and there are few complaints about service at the local hospital. Such data indicate that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals."

This story concludes that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. As evidence, the writer compares the average length of a patient’s stay between the small nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda and the large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville: two days for Saluda patients and six days for Megaville patients. Additionally, the writer claims that the cure rate for Saluda patients is about two times that of Megaville patients and that the Saluda hospital has more employees per patient than the Megaville hospital with fewer complaints about the service. This argument is based on problematic reasoning that possibly misinterprets the information, thus leading to the wrong conclusion.

The first claim of the arguer compares the average length of a patient’s stay between the two hospitals, with an average of six days for the Megaville hospital and two days for the Saluda hospital. However, this does not take into account the reasons that the patient’s are in the hospitals in the first place. It is highly likely that the worst cases go to the nearby and larger Megaville hospital as it likely has more facilities and a better capability for dealing with difficult medical cases. As a small nonprofit hospital, it is likely that Saluda is not equipped to handle cases other than minor emergency cases. Furthermore, because Saluda is a small hospital, they may be forced to discharge patients sooner whether they are ready to be sent home or not. When severity of the patients’ conditions is taken into account, as well as capacity limitations, it is clear that length of stay is not a proper indicator of a hospital’s economic performance or quality of care.

The arguer also claims that the cure rate among Saluda patients is about twice that of Megaville patients. One problem with this claim is that “cure rate” is not defined – is a woman that gives birth “cured” once she is discharged? Once a broken arm is set in the emergency room, has that patient been “cured”? Perhaps as a small nonprofit hospital, Saluda treats mainly minor emergency injuries such as sprains and fractures while Megaville treats major illnesses such as cancer and AIDS. It is likely that the so-called cure rate is dramatically affected by Saluda either not accepting the much more serious cases or referring them to the nearby Megaville hospital for treatment, which severely weakens the writer’s argument.

Furthermore, the arguer states that Saluda has more employees per patient with fewer complaints about service. Firstly, the number of employees per patient is not necessarily an indicator of better quality care – Saluda may have more administrative staff per patient than Megaville but fewer doctors and nurses that actually deal with each patient. Secondly, patients know that Saluda is a small nonprofit hospital and therefore do not have high expectations as they do at the larger, for-profit hospital at Megaville. Patients are very aware of the adage “you get what you pay for” and are therefore much less likely to complain at the smaller hospital. It is also possible that because the cases are much more minor and the average stays much shorter at the Saluda hospital, patients have less opportunity for complaining.

In summary, the writer fails to consider the other possible reasons for the information presented in the argument. Without addressing such considerations as the severity of the patients’ illnesses or injuries and whether a hospital’s employees are administrators or are actually involved in direct patient contact, the argument is weak and does not convince the reader that smaller, nonprofit hospitals give more economical and higher quality treatment than larger, for-profit hospitals.

(618 words)

参考译文


[题目]

下述文字摘自某报纸主题故事。

在Saluda镇那座规模不大的非盈利性医院，病人住院的平均长度仅为两天；而在邻近的Megaville市的那家大型盈利性医院，病人住院的平均长度则是6天。此外，Saluda医院的病人治愈率大约是Megaville市医院的两倍。Saluda医院里员工与病人的比例也高于Megaville市医院，并且在这所地方医院，患者对服务质量的投诉也极少。所有这些数据均表明，小型非盈利性医院的医疗要比大型盈利性医院的医疗来得更加质优价廉。


[范文正文]

上述故事的结论是，小型非盈利性医院的医疗服务要比大型盈利性医院的医疗服务来得更加质优价廉。作为证据，故事的作者将Saluda镇那所小型的非盈利性医院和附近Megaville市的那所大型盈利性医院在病人住院治疗的平均长度方面进行了比较——Saluda镇医院的病人为两天，Megaville市医院的病人则为6天。此外，故事作者称，Saluda病人的治愈率约为Megaville病人治愈率的两倍；并且，Saluda医院内职员与病人的比例高于Megaville医院，对服务质量的投诉亦较少。这段论述完全基于成问题的逻辑推理，很有可能误解了原有信息，因此导致了错误的结论。

论述者的第一个论点将两所医院中病人平均住院时间的长度进行了比较，Megaville市医院为6天，而Saluda镇医院仅为2天。但是，这首先就没有考虑到病人入院治疗的原因。极有可能的是，最严重的病例会前往附近较大的市医院求治，因为它可能拥有更多的设备，且更能处理高难度的治疗个案。作为一所小型的非盈利性医院，Saluda可能除了处理一些轻微的急诊个案外，没有条件来处理其他个案。此外，由于Saluda只是一所小医院，他们可能被迫让病人更早办理出院手续，不管这些病人是否适宜被遣送回家。当病人身体状况的严重性和医院医疗能力的局限性全部被考虑在内之后，显而易见，住院时间的长短并不能恰当地表明一所医院的经济表现或医疗质量。

论述者此外还宣称，Saluda病人的治愈率约为Megaville病人治愈率的两倍。这一论点的其中一个问题在于，“治愈率”未得到清晰的定义——一位产妇的出院可否被视为“治愈”呢？手臂骨折后在急救室里进行处理，可否能将病人形容为“已被治愈”？或许，作为一家小型的非盈利性医院，Saluda主要治疗轻微的急诊个案，如扭伤和骨折，而Megaville则主要治疗重大疾病，如癌症和爱滋病。很有可能的是，由于 Saluda既不接受远为严重的个案，或将它们转往附近的Megaville医院进行救治，故它所谓的治愈率便受到了戏剧性的影响。这便严重地削弱了作者的论点。

另外，论述者称，Saluda的职员对病人的比例高于Megaville，且较少遭到服务质量方面的投诉。首先，医院职员对病人的比例并非必定标志着更好的医疗质量——Saluda可能是行政人员对病人的比例高出Megaville，而实际治疗病人的大夫和护士却数量来得较少。其次，病人们知道Saluda只是一所非盈利性小医院，因此他们对它并不会有太高的期望。而病人对Megaville较大的盈利性医院则不然。病人们都强烈地意识到“物有所值”这一至理名言，因此对小医院远不太可能进行投诉。也有可能是，由于在 Saluda医院各种个案远为轻微，且平均住院时间极短，故病人没有那么多的机会来进行投诉。

总而言之，故事作者没有考虑论述中所列举的信息的其他可然性原因。由于没有探讨这样一些必须考虑的因素，如病人疾病或受伤的严重程度，以及一所医院的职员是属于行政人员还是属于实际与病人直接打交道的医务人员，所以该段论述显得软弱无力，无法让读者相信，规模较小的非盈利性医院比规模较大的盈利性医院提供着更为质优价廉的医疗服务。

imongUID：140258

argument204

The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a farming publication.

"With continuing publicity about the need for healthful diets, and with new research about the harmful effects of eating too much sugar, nationwide demand for sugar will no doubt decline. Therefore, farmers in our state should use the land on which they currently grow sugar cane to grow peanuts, a food that is rich in protein and low in sugar. Farmers in the neighboring country of Palin greatly increased their production of peanuts last year, and their total revenues from that crop were quite high."

In this argument, the writer claims that nationwide demand for sugar will decline due to continuing publicity about the need for healthful diets and new research about the harmful effects of eating too much sugar. The writer then concludes that farmers in his or her state should grow peanuts rather than sugar cane. As further support for the argument, the writer claims that farmers in the neighboring country of Palin greatly increased their production of peanuts last year and had quite high total revenues from that crop. This argument is based on faulty logic and fails to convince the reader of its conclusion.

First of all, publicity about the need for a healthful diet and new research about the harmful effects of eating too much sugar do not necessarily indicate that the nationwide demand for sugar will decline. People in general ignore what is necessary for a healthful diet and eat what they like. Furthermore, it is not stated whether this state’s population currently eats too much sugar. It is possible that the sugar intake of the population is not a problem, therefore there does not need to be a reduction in the amount of sugar eaten. With no need to reduce the amount of sugar eaten, demand is unlikely to decline. The arguer states merely a conclusion that demand for sugar will decline without demonstrating a direct cause and effect relationship between that demand and the publicity about the need for a healthful diet and/or the new research about the harmful effects of eating too much sugar. This greatly weakens the writer’s argument.

In addition, the writer assumes that the farmers can actually grow peanuts on the same land on which they currently grow sugar cane. No such evidence is presented in the argument. The two are very different crops that likely require very different types of climate and soil. Without demonstrating that the farmers can make this transition, the writer again fails to support his or her conclusion.

Furthermore, peanuts and sugar are in no way substitutes for one another. The writer assumes that a decrease in demand for sugar will result in an increase in demand for peanuts, which is not true. Peanuts may be low in sugar content and high in protein, but they are also high in fat, which is not good for a healthful diet. Even assuming that this state’s population is concerned about a healthful diet or the harmful effects of eating too much sugar, there is no basis presented for the growing of peanuts instead of sugar. Again, the writer fails to make a direct connection between the evidence presented and his or her conclusion.

Finally, the writer mentions that farmers in the neighboring country of Palin greatly increased their production of peanuts last year and that their total revenues from that crop were quite high. Total revenue is the total amount of money brought in by the crop, without factoring in the farmers’ expenses. It is possible that although the total revenues were quite high, the farmers’ net income was quite low or may have even been net loss. In addition, the neighboring country of Palin may not be comparable to the writer’s state – demand for peanuts may be higher there, the climate and soil may be more suitable for growing peanuts, etc. It does not automatically follow that what happened in a neighboring country could be repeated in the writer’s home state.

In summary, the writer bases his or her conclusion on vague and ambiguous evidence. There is no convincing support given that shows that sugar demand will decline statewide, nor that farmers should grow peanuts instead of sugar. Without demonstrating such a cause and effect relationship, the writer’s argument fails to convince on its premise and should be rejected.

(637 words)


参考译文


[题目]

下述文字摘自一封致某农村出版物的编辑的信函。

“随着持续不断的有关健康饮食必要性的宣传，以及对食用过多糖份所带来的有害后果所作的新研究，全国范围内对糖的需求量将会下降。因此，本州农民应该将目前用来种植甘蔗的土地改为种植花生这种蛋白质含量高而糖份含量低的作物。邻国Palin的农民去年大幅度增加了其花生的生产，且他们从这一作物中获得的总收益十分可观。”


[范文正文]

在以上论述中，信函作者称，由于有关健康饮食必要性的持续不断的宣传，以及对食用过多糖份的有害后果所作的新研究，全国范围内对糖的需求量将会下降。这位作者随接得出结论认为，他（或她）所在的州的农民应该种植花生而非甘蔗。作为其论点的进一步依据，该作者称邻国Palin的农民去年大规模增加了其花生的生产并在该作物上获得了极为高额的总体收益。我们不难发现这段论述所依据的是漏洞百出的逻辑，无法让读者信服其结论。

首先，有关健康饮食必要性的宣传以及对食用过多糖份的有害后果所作的新研究并不必定表明，全国范围内对糖的需求量将会下降。普通人是不会去管健康饮食包括哪些必要的东西；他们只是喜欢什么就吃什么。此外，信函中没有陈述该州的人们目前是否在食用过多的糖。有可能的是，这些人的糖份摄入量并不存在问题，因此没有必要减少所食用的糖量。在没有必要减少所食用的糖量的情况下，需求量就不可能下降。论述者仅仅陈述了糖的需求量将会下降这一结论，而没能证明在糖的需求量和有关健康饮食必要性的宣传及/或有关食用过多糖份的有害后果的新研究之间，存在着直接的因果关系。这一点就足以大大地削弱信函作者的论点。

此外，信函作者认为，农民们在他们目前种植甘蔗的土地上实际上也能种植花生。这方面的证据在文中无处可觅。这两种作物非常不同，可能需要非常不同的气候和土壤。在没能证明农民们可改种花生的情况下，信函作者又一次没能为其结论提供依据。

进一步而言，花生和甘蔗绝不可能互相替代。信函作者认为对糖需求量的下降必将导致对花生需求量的上升。这一点并不属实。花生有可能含糖量低，蛋白质含量高，但它们脂肪含量同样也很高，不宜于健康饮食。即使假定该州的人口非常关注健康饮食，以及食用过多的糖确实会造成有害后果，但文中没有任何依据可表明应种植花生来替代甘蔗。信函作者再度没能在所列举的证据和他（或她）所得出的结论之间建立起直接的联系。　

最后，信函作者提到，邻国Palin的农民去年大幅度增加了花生的生产，并从该作物上获得了十分可观的总收益。总收益指的是由作物所带来的全部货币量，而没有计入农民的开支。情况有可能是，虽然总收益十分可观，但农民们的净收入却十分低，或甚至出现净亏损。还有，邻国Palin可能与作者所在的州不具可比性——那里对花生的需求量可能较高，气候和土壤有可能更宜于种植花生，等等。但这一点并不能让我们自然而然地得出结论，认为邻国所发生的一切可在信函作者自己的州内重演。

归纳而言，信函作者将其结论基于模糊不清的和模棱两可的证据。该作者没能举出令人信服的依据来证明全州范围内对糖的需求量将会下降，也没能证明农民们应该种植花生来替代甘蔗。在没能证明这样一种因果关系的情况下，该作者的论述无法让人相信其命题，故应予摈弃。

imongUID：140258

argument205

The following appeared in a recommendation from the president of Amburg's Chamber of Commerce.

"Last October the city of Belleville installed high intensity lighting in its central business district, and vandalism there declined almost immediately. The city of Amburg has recently begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district but the rate of vandalism there remains constant. Since high intensity lighting is apparently the most effective way to combat crime, we should install such lighting throughout Amburg. By reducing crime in this way, we can revitalize the declining neighborhoods in our city."

In this argument, the president of the Amburg Chamber of Commerce claims that the city of Belleville installed high intensity lighting in its central business district, which caused an immediate decline in vandalism. The president then states that his city of Amburg began bicycle police patrols in its business district but the rate of vandalism has been unchanged. The president then comes to the conclusion that Amburg should install high intensity lighting throughout the city, as it is apparently the most effective way to fight crime, which would then lead to a revitalization of the declining neighborhoods in the city. This argument is based on problematic reasoning and it should therefore be rejected.

First of all, the arguer does not state whether Belleville only installed high intensity lighting or also made some other changes, such as more frequent police patrols. It is unclear whether the high intensity lighting was the only change made in Belleville’s central business district. There may have been factors other than just the lighting that caused the decline in vandalism, which makes this argument less believable.

Secondly, the arguer does not state whether the cities and business districts of Belleville and Amburg are similar to each other or very different. It is possible that Belleville’s central business district is very small, which would make high intensity lighting much more effective at preventing vandalism than in a very large business district. Without addressing the issue of whether the two business districts are similar or dissimilar, the arguer has further weakened his or her argument.

Furthermore, the arguer mentions that the city of Amburg has recently begun police bicycle patrols but that the rate of vandalism has remained unchanged. The arguer fails to mention how many policemen patrol the area and how often – one policeman patrolling the area one or two times every twenty-four hours would be highly unlikely to make much of a difference in the area. By failing to discuss this issue, the argument is further weakened.

In addition, the arguer comes to the conclusion that high intensity lighting is apparently the most effective way to combat crime. The argument is already based on weak and ambiguous information, but here the arguer makes a critical mistake by equating vandalism with crime. In the argument, the arguer discusses the rates of vandalism in both Belleville and Amburg but never mentions other violations of the law that make up “crime”. It is possible that the high intensity lighting in Belleville has reduced vandalism but that other crimes such as muggings or burglaries have remained the same or increased. A reduction in vandalism is not necessarily a reduction in the number of overall crimes committed. By discussing vandalism and crime as one and the same, the arguer has critically weakened his or her argument.

Finally, the president states that installing high intensity lighting throughout Amburg will reduce crime and thus revitalize declining neighborhoods. First of all, residents of Amburg undoubtedly do not want high intensity lighting everywhere, particularly in residential neighborhoods where the resulting “light pollution” could keep residents awake at night. Furthermore, even assuming that the lighting would reduce crime, a reduction in crime does not automatically result in a revitalized neighborhood. Less crime would be a good start but there are numerous other factors involved with actually revitalizing a neighborhood, such as renovating derelict buildings, improving the economy, etc.

In summary, the arguer has failed to address some important issues and comes to his or her conclusion based on the false analogy between vandalism and crime. To strengthen the argument, the president should present evidence that shows that Amburg and Belleville have similar business districts, that high intensity lighting is the sole reason for a reduction in all crime, and that installing the lighting throughout Amburg would both be acceptable to residence as well as reduce crime. Without such evidence, the argument is fatally weak and fails to convince on its premise.

(658 words)


参考译文


[题目]
下述文字摘自Amburge商会主席的一份书面建议。

“去年10月，Belleville市在其中央商务区安装了高密度的照明系统，那里毁坏公共设施的行为几乎即刻下降。Amburg市最近已开始实行警察骑着自行车在其商务区进行巡察的制度，但毁坏公共设施的比例依然居高不下。既然高密度照明系统显然是最有效的方法来与犯罪行为作斗争，我们就应该在Amburg市的所有地方安装此类照明系统。通过以这种方式减少犯罪，我们便能为本市越来越不景气的各个社区重新注入活力。”


[范文正文]

在以上论述中，Amburg市的商会主席称，Belleville市在其中央商务区安装了高密度的照明系统，从而致使毁坏公共设施的罪行立刻下降。这位主席先生接着宣称，虽然他所在的Amburg市已在其商业区实施警察自行车巡察制度，但毁坏公共设施的犯罪率一如既往地居高不下。这位主席最后得出结论，认为Amburg市应在全市所有地段安装高密度的照明系统，因为它显然是对付这种犯罪的最佳途径，而这又可以使市内越来越不景气的各社区重新恢复活力。然而，我们可以发现这种论述完全基于颇成问题的逻辑推理，故理应予以摈弃。

首先，论述者没能陈述清楚Belleville市是否仅安装了高密度的照明系统，还是也进行了某些其他方面的改进，诸如更为频繁的警察巡逻。我们无法明确知道高密度照明系统的安装是否是Belleville市在中央商务区所作的唯一改进。除了照明系统本身以外，可能还有其他因素导致了毁坏公物罪行的下降。这一点就足以使该论述不那么可信了。

第二，论述者没有陈述清楚Belleville和Amburge这两个城市及其商业区是否相似还是绝然不同。情况有可能是，Beleville市的中央商务区规模非常小，这就使得高密度照明系统比在大型商业区更能有效地防止毁坏公共设施行为的发生。由于没能澄清两个商业区是相似还是相异这一问题，论述者进一步削弱了其自己的论点。

再者，论述者提到，Amburg市最近也开始实行警察自行车巡逻制度，但毁坏公物的犯罪率却仍然没有变化。论述者没有提到有多少警察在巡视这一地区以及巡逻的频繁程度如果——如果只有一个警察每24小时只在一地巡逻一次或二次，是极不可能产生太大变化的。由于没有探讨这一问题，这一论述遭到了进一步的削弱。

此外，论述者得出这样一个结论，即高密度照明系统显然是打击犯罪的最有效途径。我们发现，该论述早就是基于缺乏力度的和模棱两可的信息，但即使在这里，论述者由于将毁坏公共设施行为与犯罪行为混为一谈，又犯下了一个殊为严重的错误。在其论述中，论述者讨论了Belleville和Amburg两市毁坏公共设施行为的比例，但却从来没有提到其他一些足以构成”罪行”的违法行为。情况有可能是，Belleville市的高密度照明系统已减少了毁坏公共财物的行为，但诸如从背后袭击并抢劫、入室偷盗等其他犯罪行为却依然如故，或有所增加。毁坏公共财物这一犯罪行为的减少并不必定等于所犯罪行的总量已经减少。由于将毁坏公共财物的行为与犯罪当作同一概念来讨论，论述者甚为严重地削弱了自己的论述。

最后，商会主席称，在Amburg全市安装高密度照明系统将能降低犯罪率，并由此而重振一个个不景气的社区。首先，Amburg市民肯定不希望市内每个地方都出现高密度照明系统，尤其是在居住区，因为随之而来的“光污染”终将使小区居民整夜无法入睡。另外，即使我们假定照明系统可以降低犯罪率，但犯罪率的降低并不会自然而然地带来社区的重振与繁荣。犯罪的减少不失为一个良好的开端，但要真正恢复社区的繁荣还涉及到许多其他因素，诸如改造被人遗弃的危旧楼房，以及改善经济状况等。

总而言之，论述者没能探讨某些重要问题，只是基于毁坏公共财物行为与犯罪之间的虚假类比而得出了他/她的结论。若欲使其论点更具力度，商会主席应该拿出证据来说明，Amburg与Belleivlle两市拥有相似的商业区，高密度照明系统是减少所有罪行的唯一原因，以及在Amburg全市安装这种照明系统不仅能让全市居民们接受，而且亦能减少犯罪。在没有这些证据的情况下，商会主席的论述带有致命薄弱的逻辑缺陷，且无以让人信服其命题。

imongUID：140258

argument206

The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Parkville Daily Newspaper.

"Throughout the country last year, as more and more children below the age of nine participated in youth-league softball and soccer, over 80,000 of these young players suffered injuries. When interviewed for a recent study, youth-league softball players in several major cities also reported psychological pressure from coaches and parents to win games. Furthermore, education experts say that long practice sessions for these sports take away time that could be used for academic activities. Since the disadvantages apparently outweigh any advantages, we in Parkville should discontinue organized athletic competition for children under nine."


In this argument, the writer claims that more and more children below the age of nine were participating in youth league softball and soccer last year and that more than eighty thousand of those players suffered injuries. The writer also claims that youth league softball players in several major cities reported psychological pressure from coaches and parents to win games when interviewed for a study. Additionally, the writer cites educational experts as saying that long practice sessions for such sports take away time that could be used for academic activities. The writer then comes to the conclusion that the disadvantages outweigh any advantages; therefore the city of Parkville should discontinue organized athletic competition for children under the age of nine. This argument is based on problematic reasoning and it should therefore be rejected.

The first problem with this argument is that it does not define what types of injuries the eighty thousand youngsters suffered. Although any injury, no matter how slight, is undesirable, the argument is weakened by not discussing the relative severity of these injuries. This is necessary information when weighing the advantages or disadvantages of youth league sports for children under nine.

Secondly, the writer mentions that youth league softball players in several major cities reported psychological pressure from coaches and parents to win games. The problems with this information are obvious: the study was only for one sport, not all types of athletics; it was only conducted in the major cities, which may or may not be representative of what young athletes throughout the rest of the country would report; and the number of children reporting the psychological pressure as compared to those who did not report it is never mentioned. It is possible that only a few children reported such pressure. Moreover, the term “psychological pressure” is not defined and its meaning is unclear. A study that reports that an unknown number of children feel psychological pressure without defining what that term means, as well as covering only one type of sporting activity and only in the major cities is very weak evidence for discontinuing all athletic activities for children under nine years of age.

Furthermore, the writer mentions that long practice sessions take away time that could be used for academic activities. There is absolutely no evidence presented that Parkville youth league sports have long practice sessions, or that they have any practice sessions at all for that matter. In addition, too much time for academic activities is not healthy for children; they need time to exercise their bodies as well as their minds. Without evidence that long practice sessions are hurting the children’s studies, the argument is further weakened.

Finally, the writer jumps to the conclusion that the disadvantages apparently outweigh the advantages and that Parkville should discontinue organized athletic competition for children under nine. In this argument, the writer only mentions the disadvantages and none of the advantages. No evidence is presented that indicates that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages – some weak and ambiguous information is merely thrown into the argument. Furthermore, the writer ignores other changes that could be made short of discontinuing the program. Solutions such as shortening practice sessions, enforcing mandatory safety equipment rules and emphasizing sportsmanship rather than winning or losing are all ignored by the writer, which greatly weakens the argument.

In summary, the writer has done nothing more than state an opinion with some anecdotal information included that proves nothing. Without providing direct evidence that the children under the age of nine in Parkville are being hurt more than helped by organized athletic competition, the writer’s argument is unconvincing and should be rejected.

(613 words)



参考译文


[题目]

下述文字摘至一封致《 Parkville日报》某编辑的信函。

“去年在我们整个国家，由于越来越多的9岁以下的孩子参加了青少年联赛的垒球和足球运动，这些年轻球员中有不止80，000多人受伤。在接受某项近期的研究的访谈时，若干大城市中青少年联赛的垒球运动员称，他们承受着来自教练和家长的赢球压力。此外，教育专家称，这些体育运动员所需的漫长训练期耗费了原本可用于学习活动的时间。既然弊明显大于利，我们在Parkille 市就应该停止9岁以下的儿童进行有组织的体育竞赛。”


[范文正文]

在上述论述中，信函作者称，越来越多的9岁以下的儿童去年参加了青少年联赛的垒球和足球运动，而在这些运动员中，有80，000多名运动员受过伤。信函作者还宣称，若干个大城市中的青少年联赛垒球运动员在接受某项研究的访谈中说，他们承受着来自教练和家长们的赢球压力。此外，信函作者援引了教育专家的话说，这些体育项目所需的漫长训练期浪费了原本可用于学习活动的时间。这位作者接下来得出结论认为，弊显然大于利，因此Parkville市应该停止9岁以下的儿童进行任何有组织的体育竞赛。上述论述完全基于漏洞百出的逻辑推理，故应予摈弃。

上述论述的第一个问题是，它没有清楚地界定80，000多个小孩子所受的伤属于哪些类型。虽然任何伤痛，无论多么的轻微，均是不可取的，但上述论述由于没能讨论这些伤痛的相对严重程度而受到削弱。有关伤痛类型的信息应是必要的，因为它有助于我们衡量9岁以下孩童从事青少年联赛体育活动的利与弊。

第二，信函作者提到，若干个大城市的青少年联赛的垒球运动员称，他们承受着来自教练和家长们的赢球压力。这一信息所存在的问题是显而易见的：该项研究仅是针对一个体育项目的，而非针对所有类型的体育比赛；它仅仅是在大城市进行的，它或许能够也或许不能够典型地代表全国其他地区青少年运动员的感受；与那些没有说承受着心理压力的孩童相比，承认承受着心理压力的儿童的数量绝未被提到。情况有可能是，仅有很少一些儿童声称承受着这种压力。另外，“心理压力”这一术语未被定义，其含义模糊不清。一份调查研究，如果它仅报告说一些数量不明的孩子感到承受着心理压力，不对相关术语进行定义，仅涵盖一种类型的体育活动，且仅在某几座大城市进行，它只能充当极为微弱的证据，不足以来停止9岁以下儿童所有类别的体育活动。再者，信函作者提到，漫长的训练期会占用原本可用以学习活动的珍贵时间。信函作者绝对没有列举任何证据来证明，Parkville市青少年联赛的体育活动需要漫长的训练期，以及因为那一原因而有任何训练期。此外，太多的时间用在学习上对孩子也是不利于健康的；他们需要有时间来活动他们的身体，而不仅仅是活动他们的大脑。没有拿出证据来证明漫长的训练期正危及孩子们的学业，故该项论述受到进一步的削弱。

最后，信函作者轻率地得出结论，称弊显然大于利，并且Parkville市应该终止9岁以下的儿童进行任何有组织的体育比赛。在此论述中，信函作者仅提及了弊而未提及利。根本没有任何证据可显示弊大于利。我们所看到的仅仅是被塞入到本项论述中的某些缺乏力度和模棱两可的信息。此外，信函作者忽略了除终止体育项目之外所能采取的其他改善措施。像缩短训练周期，执行强制性的安全设备规定，以及强调体育精神而不是单纯的比赛输赢。所有这些解决问题的方法均被信函作者视而不见，由此而严重地削弱了其论据。

归纳而言，信函作者所做的，只是利用某些什么都证明不了的趣事轶闻性质的信息来表达某种个人观点。由于没有提供直接的证据来证明Parkville 市9岁以下的孩童从事有组织的体育竞赛所蒙受的弊是否会大于所得到的利，故信函作者的论述不能令人信服，应予摈弃。

imongUID：140258

argument207

It is known that in recent years, industrial pollution has caused the Earth's ozone layer to thin, allowing an increase in the amount of ultraviolet radiation that reaches the Earth's surface. At the same time, scientists have discovered, the population of a species of salamander that lays its eggs in mountain lakes has declined. Since ultraviolet radiation is known to be damaging to delicate tissues and since salamander eggs have no protective shells, it must be the case that the increase in ultraviolet radiation has damaged many salamander eggs and prevented them from hatching. This process will no doubt cause population declines in other species, just as it has in the salamander species.

Here the arguer states that industrial pollution has caused the Earth’s ozone layer to become thinner, thus allowing more ultraviolet (UV) radiation to reach the surface of the Earth. The arguer states that at the same time, scientists have discovered that the population of a species of salamander that lays its eggs in mountain lakes has declined. The arguer also states that ultraviolet radiation is known to be damaging to delicate tissues and that salamander eggs have no protective shells. The arguer than concludes that UV radiation must have damaged the salamander’s eggs and prevented them from hatching, and that the same process will cause other species’ populations to decline as well. This argument should be rejected because it is based on faulty cause and effect reasoning.

First of all, the arguer fails to present any evidence that UV radiation is actually damaging this particular species of salamander’s eggs or that it prevents them from hatching. Although it may be that UV rays are harmful to delicate tissues, it does not automatically follow that UV rays are therefore harmful to the salamander’s eggs or that it keeps them from being able to hatch. Furthermore, the arguer implies that because this salamander’s eggs have no protective shells, they must be vulnerable to UV radiation. Again, there is no evidence that this is the case. It is possible that they simply are not vulnerable to ultraviolet radiation, with or without protective shells. Without providing direct proof that the UV rays are indeed harmful to the salamander’s eggs, the argument is weakened and remains unconvincing.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence presented that the salamander’s eggs are being harmed or prevented from hatching by anything. It is possible that the eggs of the salamander are not being harmed at all. The arguer assumes that UV radiation damage is the reason for the decline in the population but totally ignores all other possible reasons. For example, it is possible that another species that preys on the salamanders or its eggs has increased, therefore leading to the decline in its population. It could be that other types of pollutants have polluted the water, killing off the salamander and/or its eggs. Perhaps a drought has caused the mountain lakes to shrink, therefore leaving fewer places for the salamander to lays its eggs and causing the decline. By ignoring these other possible reasons for the decline in the population of this species of salamander, as well as providing no evidence that its eggs are actually even being harmed, the arguer has critically weakened his or her position.

In addition, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever presented that, even assuming that the UV radiation is causing a decline in this particular species of salamander, it will also cause population declines in other species. It does not follow that simply because one species has been negatively impacted by ultraviolet radiation that other species will be harmed as well. It could be possible that this particular species of salamander has a genetic predisposition that causes it to be ultra-sensitive to ultraviolet radiation, therefore resulting in a decline in its population. The argument fails to convince that other species will also decline, even assuming that this particular species of salamander is being harmed by UV radiation.

In summary, the arguer bases his or her argument on vague and unconvincing evidence. Without showing a direct cause and effect relationship between an increase in ultraviolet radiation and damage that prevents this species of salamander’s eggs from hatching, as well as direct evidence that other species will be harmed as well, this argument fails to convince on its premise and should be rejected.

(615 words)


参考译文


[题目]

众所周知，在最近的几年中，工业污染已导致地球的臭氧层变得日益稀薄，致使到达地球表面的紫外线辐射量增加。同时，科学家们发现，一种在山间湖泊里产卵的物种——蝾螈——的种群数量已出现减少。由于紫外线辐射会破坏纤薄的组织，且由于蝾螈的卵没有任何保护性外壳，情况肯定是，紫外线辐射的增加已毁灭了大量的蝾螈卵，使他们无法被孵化。这一过程无疑会导致其他物种的种群数量下降，正如它已导致了蝾螈物种的数量下降那样。


[范文正文]

上述文字的论述者在这里宣称，工业污染已导致地球的臭氧层变得日趋稀薄，从而使更多的紫外线辐射到达地球表面。论述者称，与此同时，科学家们发现，一种叫做蝾螈的在山间湖泊里产卵的物种，其种群数量已呈下降趋势。论述者还指出，紫外线辐射可破坏纤薄的组织，并且蝾螈的卵没有任何保护壳。论述者然后得出结论认为，紫外线辐射肯定已对蝾螈的卵构成破坏，致使它们无法孵化，并且这同一种过程也将致使其他物种的种群数量呈下降趋势。这一论述应予以摈弃，因为它全然基于谬误和虚妄的因果推理。

首先，论述者没能列举出任何证据来证明，紫外线确实在损害着蝾螈这一特定物种所产的卵，以及在阻碍着它们的孵化。虽然紫外线有可能对纤薄的组织有害，但这并不能自然而然地使我们得出结论，说紫外线因此对蝾螈的卵有害，使它们无法被孵化出来。此外，论述者暗示，由于这种蝾螈的卵没有任何保护壳，它们肯定易于受到紫外线的毁损。我们再一次发现，没有任何证据可证明实际情况确实如此。有可能是，无论有没有保护壳，它们根本不会易于受紫外线毁损。由于没能提供直接的证据来证明紫外线对蝾螈的卵确实有害，故这一论述深受削弱，令人无法信服。

进一步而言，论述者绝没有列举出证据来证明，蝾螈的卵正受到任何因素的危害，或因为任何因素而无法得以孵化。蝾螈的卵有可能一点也没有受到伤害。论述者假设紫外线的破坏是该种群数量下降的原因，但却完全忽略了所有其他各种可然性原因。例如，可能另一类物种的数量在不断上升，它们以蝾螈及它们的卵作为捕食对象，从而导致其种群数量下降。也有可能是其他种类的污染物造成了水污染，大量杀死了蝾螈和/或其卵。或许干旱造成山间湖泊萎缩，从而使蝾螈产卵的场所越来越少，引起该物种数量下降。由于忽略了造成蝾螈这一物种种群数量下降的其他可然性因素，论述者严重削弱了其论点的逻辑性。

此外，论述者绝对没有列举出任何证据来证明这样一个结论，即尽管我们假设紫外线辐射正在造成蝾螈这一特定物种数量下降，它也必将造成其他物种的种群数量下降。有一件事情是不合逻辑的，即只是因为某一物种受到了紫外线辐射的负面影响，其他物种也会以同样的方式受到伤害。情况有可能是，蝾螈这一特定物种具有某种基因特性，使其对紫外线辐射特别敏感，从而导致其种群数量下降。该论述没能让我们相信，即使假定蝾螈这一特定物种正在受到紫外线辐射的伤害，其他物种也会出现数量上的减少。

归纳而言，论述者将其论述基于模糊不清的和无法令人置信的证据上。该论述由于没能在紫外辐射量的增加与造成蝾螈这一物种的卵无法孵化的破坏之间证明某种直接的因果关系，且没能列举出直接的证据来证明其他的物种同样也会受到危害，故无法让人信服其命题，故应予以摈弃。

imongUID：140258

argument

The following appeared in a memo from the human resources department of Rifco Computer Company to the company president.

"In order to prevent conflicts in the workplace, Rifco Computer Company should require all its employees to attend workshops that teach the technique of active listening, a technique in which people express feelings without assigning blame. This technique has clearly benefited Terland Publishing Company: five years ago, two hundred recently hired Terland employees volunteered to participate in a one-day active-listening workshop. Five years later, only five percent of these employees had filed formal complaints with the human resources department, whereas the company as a whole had a fifteen percent complaint rate during that period."

This argument is an attempt by the human resources department of Rifco Computer Company to persuade the company president that the company should require all employees to attend workshops that teach the technique of active listening to prevent conflicts in the workplace. As evidence, the arguer states that Terland Publishing Company has clearly benefited from sending two hundred employees to a one-day active listening workshop five years ago because only five percent of those employees had filed formal complaints with the human resources department while the company as a whole had a fifteen percent complaint rate during the same period. This argument is based on flawed logic and should be rejected.

First of all, the reason that the human resources department cites for sending all employees to the active listening workshop is to prevent conflict in the workplace. There is no evidence presented to support the idea that either attending the workshops or that the technique of active listening itself actually prevents conflicts. There could be several other reasons for the results indicated by the Terland Publishing Company’s active listening workshop experience. The fact that fewer employees percentage-wise that attended the workshop had filed formal complaints with the human resources department means nothing – it has no bearing on whether the workshop prevented conflicts in the workplace at Terland Publishing. The nature of the formal complaints gives no indication of whether they were conflict-based or of another type. A simple reduction in complaints does not mean that conflict was prevented by the workshops or by workers engaging in active listening. Additionally, there may have been an increase in informal complaints, as opposed to formal complaints. Again, a reduction in formal complaints does not mean that conflict was prevented in the workplace at Terland. Moreover, there may have been an increase in complaints of whatever nature to a department other than the human resources department. All of these possibilities serve to critically weaken the argument.

Secondly, the argument ignores the fact that the two companies are different types of businesses and therefore have employees with different characteristics. Even assuming that the active listening workshop did actually lead to a reduction in complaints, and that this is an indication that conflicts had been prevented in the workplace at Terland, it does not follow that Rifco Computer Company would have similar results simply because Terland Publishing employees attended a similar workshop with the given results. Furthermore, the two hundred Terland employees that attended the workshop were both recently hired and volunteers, most likely making them even more different than the majority of the employees of Rifco Computer Company. These dissimilarities in the employees of the two companies further weakens this argument.

Finally, even assuming that the complaints were based on workplace conflict, that an active listening workshop does serve to reduce workplace conflict, and that Terland and Rifco employees would respond similarly to such a workshop, there could be an even simpler reason that there were fewer complaints from the Terland employees that attended the workshop – they simply left the company either on their own or were laid off as the newest hires and had no occasion to file complaints of any kind with any department at Terland. Combined with the other possibilities for the reduced number of complaints, it becomes obvious that this factor is irrelevant to the argument.

In summary, this argument is based on problematic reasoning and evidence that does not support its conclusion. Without direct evidence that an active listening workshop would reduce conflict at Rifco, even assuming that conflict is a problem there, this argument should be rejected.

(603 words)



参考译文


[题目]
下述文字摘自Rifco电脑公司人力资源部致公司总裁的一份备忘录。

“为了避免工作场所的人际冲突，Rifco电脑公司应要求所有员工参加一个旨在传授积极聆听他人意见之技巧的讲习班，这种技巧可使人们在并不责备他人的情况下表达自己的感受。该技巧显然已使Terland出版公司获益匪浅：五年前，200多名新雇用的Terland公司职员自愿参加了为期一天的“积极聆听讲习班”。五年后，这些员工中仅有5%的人向人力资源部提出过正式投诉，而整个公司在那一时期仅存在15%的投诉率。”


[范文正文]

在上述论述中，Rifco电脑公司的人力资源部试图使公司总裁相信，该公司应该要求所有职员参加一个讲习班，以学习积极听取他人意见的技巧，来避免工作单位中的矛盾冲突。作为证据，论述者指出，Terland出版公司由于在5年前曾派遣200名员工前往参加一个为期一天的“积极聆听讲习班”而显著地获益匪浅，因为该公司仅有5%的员工向人力资源部提出过正式投诉，而整个公司在同一时期仅存在15%的投诉率。对本项论述稍加分析即会显示，它纯粹基于漏洞百出的逻辑推理，应该予以摈弃。

首先，人力资源部门提出派遣所有职员前往参加“积极聆听讲习班”，动机是为了防止在工作单位发生人际矛盾。但论述者丝毫没有拿出什么证据，来支持这样一种观念，即无论是参加讲习班这一行为，还是积极聆听他人意见的技巧本身，果真能在实践中防止人际矛盾。对于Terland出版公司“积极聆听讲习班”经验所得出的结果，可能存在着多方面的原因。从百分比角度来看，在参加过讲习班的员工中，已没有那么多的人向人力资源部提出过正式投诉。但这一事实本身说明不了任何问题，它与讲习班是否已成功地防止了Terland出版公司这个工作单位中的人际矛盾全然无关。正式投诉的性质无法清晰地表明，这些投诉是否基于人际矛盾，还是属于其他类型。单纯的投诉数量的减少并不意味着人际矛盾是由讲习班防止的，也不意味着是由进行积极聆听的员工防止的。此外，与正式投诉相比，非正式投诉的数量有可能上升。须再一次指出的是，正式投诉的减少并不意味着人际矛盾在Terland公司的工作环境中已被防止。还有，向人力资源部之外的某一部门提出的其它性质的投诉可能已呈上升趋势。所有这些可能性有助于严重削弱本项论述的逻辑性。

第二，本项论述忽略了这样一个事实，即两家公司代表着全然不同的两类业务，因此各自的员工有着全然不同的特点。即使我们假定“积极聆听讲习班”果真使投诉量下降，并且这一点可表明在Terand公司的工作场所人际冲突已被遏制，但这并不是说，纯粹因为Terland出版公司的员工曾参加过一个带有特定结果的类似讲习班，所以Rifco电脑公司也将取得类似的结果。此外，参加讲习班的200名Terland员工既有近期雇佣的，也有志愿人士，这一点极有可能使他们甚至更加不同于Rifco电脑公司的大多数员工。两家公司的雇员身上所存在的这些相异之处可以进一步削弱该项论述的逻辑性。

最后，即使我们假设，那些投诉是基于工作场所人际冲突的，并且“积极聆听讲习班”确实有助于减少工作场所的人际冲突，以及Terland和Rifco两家公司的员工会对这种讲习班作出类似的反应，但有一个甚至更为简单的原因可用来解释参加过讲习班的Terland员工为什么投诉不多：他们要么已主动离开了那家公司，要么已被解雇，因此没有机会向Terland公司的任何部门作任何性质的投诉。与其他使投诉量减少的可能性结合起来考虑，情况很显然，这一因素与本项论述毫不相关。

归纳而言，本项论述基于有问题的逻辑推理和证据，无法来佐证其结论。即使我们假定人际冲突在Tifco在公司确实是个问题，但由于缺乏直接的证据来证明“积极聆听讲习班”可减少该公司的人际矛盾，故此项论述应予摈弃。

imongUID：140258

argument209

The following recommendation was made by the Human Resources Manager to the board of directors of the Fancy Toy Company.

"In the last three quarters of this year, under the leadership of our president, Pat Salvo, our profits have fallen considerably. Thus, we should ask for her resignation in return for a generous severance package. In Pat's place, we should appoint Rosa Winnings. Rosa is currently president of Starlight Jewelry, a company whose profits have increased dramatically over the past several years. Although we will have to pay Rosa twice the salary that Pat has been receiving, it will be well worth it because we can soon expect our profits to increase considerably."


In this argument, the Human Resources Manager recommends to the board of directors of the Fancy Toy Company that due to a considerable fall in profits over the past three quarters, the current president should be asked to resign and given a generous severance package in return. Additionally, the H.R. Manager states that the current president of Starlight Jewelry should be hired at twice the salary of the current president, but that the added expense will be well worth it because profits could be expected to increase soon because Starlight’s profits have increased dramatically over the past several years under her leadership. This argument is unconvincing as it is based on faulty reasoning and a complete lack of evidence to support its conclusion.

In the first place, the Human Resources Manager makes an outright assumption without providing any evidence whatsoever to support that assumption. He or she assumes that the falling profits of the Fancy Toy Company are the fault of the current president but gives no reason for such an assumption. There are countless other factors that could cause falling profits that are completely out of the president’s control, such as changes in the domestic currency’s exchange rate, a declining economic situation either in the home market or in an important market abroad, or a natural disaster that caused extraordinary expenses for the company, for example. Furthermore, it is possible that the profits may have declined even further without the leadership demonstrated by the current president. Without providing any proof that the falling profits were actually caused by the actions or inactions of the current president, there is no support for the idea of asking her to resign.

Secondly, even assuming that the current president is to blame for the falling profits over the past three quarters, there is no evidence presented that the decline in profits will continue. It is possible that she has corrected her past mistakes and a turnaround has begun in the profitability of the company. A change in the presidency of the company at this point might be more detrimental than helpful to the company. It is further possible that her generous severance package might outweigh any benefits that are gained by replacing her. The H.R. Manager does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the trend in declining profits will continue nor that making a change in the presidency will increase the company’s profitability.

Thirdly, the H.R. Manager proposes to replace the toy company president with the current president of Starlight Jewelry, apparently based solely on the fact that Starlight’s profits have increased dramatically over the past several years. There is no proof offered to suggest that Starlight’s president is in any way responsible for such an increase in its profits. Furthermore, there is no evidence presented that Starlight’s president has any idea of how to run a toy company – the jewelry business is an entirely different industry dealing with a much different target market and totally different products. Additionally, the hiring of Starlight’s president as the Fancy Toy Company president will require a doubling of the salary for that executive position. Any increase in profits would have to be able to overcome a huge increase in the budgeted allocation for the presidential salary. There is no support offered to show that this would be the case.

In summary, this argument is based on mere speculation with absolutely no cause and effect evidence presented to show that the current president is in any way responsible for the toy company’s declining profits. No convincing evidence is offered that she should be asked for her resignation. Furthermore, there is no support for the idea that the current president of Starlight Jewelry is in any way qualified to lead the toy company. This argument should be rejected due to the lack of any supporting evidence that making such a change would increase the company’s overall profits.

(653 words)



参考译文


[题目]

下述文字摘自人力资源经理致新奇玩具公司董事会的一份提案：

“在本年度的过去三个季度中，在公司总裁Pat Salvo领导下，我们的利润已发生严重下滑。因此，我们应请求她辞职，以换取一份丰厚的一揽子离职福利。我们将任命Rosa Winnings来取代她的位置。Rosa 女士现任星光珠宝公司的总裁，她所领导的公司在过去的几年内利润取得了戏剧性的增长。虽然我们将不得不向Rosa女士支付高出Pat薪水两倍的工资，但这将非常值得，因为我们可以预期我们的利润不日将大幅度攀升。”

[范文正文]


在以上论述中，人力资源经理向新奇玩具公司的董事会提议，由于在过去三个季度中利润大幅度下降，目前任职的总裁应被请求辞职，以换取一份丰厚的一揽子离职福利。此外，这位人力资源经理称，星光珠宝公司现任总裁应该受到聘用，薪酬为公司目前总裁薪水的两倍，但薪酬中所增加的那部分酬金将会非常值得，因为由于星光珠宝公司的利润在其领导下在过去几年中取得了戏剧性的增长，故新奇玩具公司的利润增长也指日可待。这一论述无法令人置信，因为它基于漏洞百出的逻辑推理，完全缺乏证据来支持其结论。

首先，人力资源经理只是在作出一种绝对的假设，而没能提供任何证据来支持这一假设。这位经理假定，新奇玩具公司的利润下滑应归咎于现任总裁，但却没有提供作出这一假设的任何理由。可能存在着无数个其他因素导致盈利能力下降，而这些因素却完全超出了这位总裁的驾御能力，例如国内货币汇率的波动，出现在国内市场或某一重要的国外市场日益不景气的经济形势，以及使公司背上沉重开支的一场自然灾害等。此外，要是没有现任总裁所展现出来的领导才干的话，公司的利润有可能早就出现了甚至更为严重的滑坡。由于没有提供任何证据来证明利润下降实际上是由现任总裁的作为或不作为所引起的，故没有任何依据来证明请求她辞职这一想法的合理性。

第二，即使我们假设在过去三个季度中利润的下降确应归咎于公司现任总裁，但人力资源经理并没有列举出任何证据来证明利润下降将会持续进行下去。公司现任总裁有可能已经纠正了她过去的失误，公司有可能已开始扭亏为盈。在此时此刻更换公司总裁人选对公司来说可能有百害而无一利。情况更有可能是，她所能获得的那份丰厚的一揽子离职福利会远远超过将其取而代之所能带来的任何益处。这位人力资源经理没能提供任何证据来证明利润下降的趋势将会继续下去，也没能证明总裁人选的更换将增加公司的利润。

第三，人力资源经理提议用星光珠宝公司的现任总裁来替代玩具公司的总裁。显然，这位经理所依据的仅仅只是这样一个事实，即星光珠宝公司的利润在过去几年中呈戏剧性的增长。论述者没有提供任何证据来表明这种利润的增长在任何方面应归功于星光珠宝公司的总裁。此外，也没有列举出任何证据来证明星光珠宝公司的总裁关于如何来经营一家玩具公司会有哪些具体的设想。珠宝生意是一种截然不同的行业，所处理的是迥然不同的市场以及全然不同的产品。除此之外，聘用星光珠宝公司的总裁来担任新奇玩具公司的总裁，将不得不为这一行政职位支付两倍的薪酬。任何利润增长应必须能够克服用以支付新总裁薪酬的预算拔款方面的巨额增长。但论述者没有提供任何依据来证明情况将会如此。

归纳而言，该项论述基于纯粹的主观臆测，绝没有列举出任何具有因果意义的证据来证明现任总裁在任何方面必须对玩具公司利润下降进行负责。也没有任何令人信服的证据被摆出来，用以证明她应被要求辞职。此外，没有任何依据可佐证这样一种看法，即星光珠宝公司的现任总裁在任何方面有资格去领导该玩具公司。该项论述应予摈弃，因为缺乏任何佐证性证据来证明，作出这样一种人事变更可增加该公司的总体利润。

imongUID：140258

argument210

The following is a letter to the editor of a news magazine.

"Clearly, the successful use of robots on missions to explore outer space in the past 20 years demonstrates that robots could be increasingly used to perform factory work more effectively, efficiently, and profitably than human factory workers. The use of robots in factories would offer several advantages. First, robots never get sick, so absenteeism would be reduced. Second, robots do not make mistakes, so factories would increase their output. Finally, the use of robots would also improve the morale of factory workers, since factory work can be so boring that many workers would be glad to shift to more interesting kinds of tasks."

In this argument, the writer of the letter to the editor states that because robots have been used successfully on outer space exploration missions, robots can also be used to replace human factory workers and perform work more effectively, efficiently and profitably. To support the argument, the writer states that robots never get sick, thereby reducing absenteeism; that robots do not make mistakes, thereby increasing factory output; and that factory workers’ morale would be improved as they would be freed from boring work to focus on more interesting kinds of tasks. There are numerous flaws in the writer’s logic with no evidence whatsoever provided to demonstrate that this proposition is correct.

First of all, the use of robots on missions to explore outer space is not the same as using robots to perform factory work – the two jobs are vastly different. The dangers inherent in outer space exploration make it much more feasible to use robots rather than humans for such dangerous work. On the contrary, most factory work is not dangerous, thus reducing the need from a humane standpoint of replacing factory workers with robots. Additionally, there is no evidence provided that robots can actually perform any type of factory work more effectively, efficiently and profitably than human workers, although it is highly likely that this is so. It is equally probable, however, that there are just as many types of factory work that can be done more effectively, efficiently and profitably by human workers rather than robots. The writer’s argument is greatly weakened by the lack of examples of factory work where robots are better than humans.

Secondly, the writer mentions that robots never get sick, which is true, but he or she fails to mention that they do break down and wear out. A robot may not actually be physically absent from the workplace but it may still be unable to perform its assigned duties. Furthermore, robots are generally more difficult to repair or replace when compared to calling in a human replacement when a worker is absent from the job. Human beings are also much more flexible and able to perform an endless variety of tasks whereas robots can only do what they have been programmed to do. A mere reduction absenteeism does not provide solid evidence for the proposition that robots would be better than humans for factory work.

Thirdly, robots may not make mistakes but they can certainly malfunction or be programmed incorrectly by their human “masters”. It simply does not follow that there would be an increase in output in these unidentified factories because robots do not make mistakes. In addition, robots are not necessarily better or faster at all kinds of tasks – with some factory work, the flexibility and “fuzzy logic” of the human mind can not be replaced by machinery. The writer’s failure to supply evidence of how factories can increase their output by replacing human workers with robots further weakens the argument.

Finally, the writer states that factory workers’ morale would be improved by the use of robots, the reasoning being that workers could shift to more interesting tasks rather than boring factory work. On the contrary, it is likely that morale would be dampened because there would be less human interaction with more robots in the workplace. Furthermore, the remaining workers would be worried about how soon their own jobs would be eliminated through the use of even more robots. Moreover, there is no evidence provided that there would be “more interesting” tasks available for factory workers with the use of more robots.

In summary, the argument is too broadly based in covering all types of factory work, and it is based on problematic reasoning. The writer fails to mention any specific examples or evidence where robots can perform any type of factory work more effectively, efficiently and profitably than human workers. Without such support, the argument must be rejected.

(657 words)



参考译文


[题目]

下述文字摘自一封致某新闻杂志编辑的信函。

“显而易见，在过去20年中，人类成功地使用机器人执行探索外层空间的使命足以证明，机器人可被越来越多地用来从事工厂工作。与工厂的人类工人相比，机器人的工作将更为有效、高效和划算。机器人在工厂中的使用将会带来诸多裨益。首先，机器人永远也不会生病，因此旷工现象将会减少。其次，机器人不可能失误，因此工厂可提高产量。最后，机器人的使用也能改善工厂工人的士气，因为工厂的工作会如此枯燥乏味，以致于许多工人会非常乐意转而去从事更有意思的工种。”


[范文正文]

在以上论述中，这封致编辑的信函的作者称，由于机器人已被成功地应用于外层空间的各项探索使命，机器人也能用来替代工厂的人类员工，它们工作起来会更加有效、高效和划算。为了支持这一论点，信函作者指出，机器人从不会患病，因此可减少旷工行为;并且，机器人不可能失误，因而可提高工厂产量；还有，工厂工人的士气将会得到改善，因为他们可以从枯燥乏味的工作中解脱出来，投入到更有意思的工种上去。信函作者的逻辑推理中含有诸多漏洞，没有提供任何证据来证明这一命题是正确的。

首先，使用机器人去从事探索外层空间的使命不同于使用机器人去从事工厂工作——这两种工作存在着天壤之别。探索外层空间活动中所固有的危险使应用机器人而非人类去从事这类危险的工作变得较为可行。相反，大多数工厂工作并无危险，因此从人道的角度看，减少用机器人取代工厂工人这一做法有着其必要性。此外，文中没有列举出证据来证明机器人实际上可比人类工人更加有效、更加高效、且更加划算地去从事任何类型的工厂工作，尽管这很有可能确实如此。但是，同样也有可能的是，也存在着许许多多的工作种类，由人类工人来完成要比由机器人来完成会来得更加有效、更加高效、且更加划算。信函作者的论述遭到了很大程度上的削弱，因为论述中缺乏机器人能比人类工人更好地从事工厂工作的实例。

第二，信函作者提到，机器人从不患病，这确实如此。但他（或她）却没能提到，机器人确实也会发生故障并变得陈旧没用。机器人实际上可能不会从其工作岗位上缺席，但它仍可能无法来履行它所被指定去完成的职责。此外，当一个人类工人从其工作岗位上缺席时，只需叫另一个人来接替他（或她）就行了。与此相比，去修理或替代机器人一般会来得更加困难。还有，人类更加灵活机动，能从事形形色色、不尽相同的工种，而机器人却只能去从事程序已经将它们设定好的那些工作。纯粹减少旷工现象不足以提供有力的证据，来证明机器人比人类能更好地从事工厂工作这一命题。

第三，机器人有可能不会失误，但它们肯定会出现功能障碍，或被其人类“主人”设置不正确的程序。在这些未经确认的工厂中，不能说因为机器人不会失误，其产量自然而然就会增长。此外，机器人并不必定能更快或更好地从事所有工种——对于某些工厂工作来说，人类大脑的灵活性和“模糊逻辑”是无法被机械所取代得了的。信函作者由于没能提供证据来证明，工厂通过机器人来取代人类工人就能增加其产量，故进一步削弱了其论点。

最后，信函作者称，工厂工人的士气会由于机器人的使用而得到提高，其推理过程是，工人们可转换到更有意思的工种，而不必受枯燥乏味的工厂工作的限制。但相反的是，由于工作环境中机器人越来越多，人际互动越来越少，故工人的士气有可能会遭到挫伤。此外，那些得以留下来的工人也会惶惶不可终日，不知道他们自己的饭碗何时会因为机器人越来越多的使用而被剥夺。再者，没有任何迹象可表明，随着机器人越来越多的使用，对工厂工人而言还会有什么“更有意思”的工种。

总而言之，此项论述涵盖面过于宽泛，囊括了所有类别的工厂工作，并且，它还基于极成问题的逻辑推理。信函作者没有给出任何具体的实例或证据来证明机器人在从事任何类别的工厂工作时可比人类工人来得更加有效，更加高效，且更加划算。由于没有这些依据，该项论述不足为信，应予摈弃。

imongUID：140258

argument211

The following appeared in a memorandum to faculty from the academic vice president of Waymarsh University.

"So that we can better accomplish Waymarsh University's academic goals, we should adopt the job-opportunity (job-op) program offered at Plateau Technical College and strongly encourage all students at Waymarsh to participate in it. The success of the job-op program at Plateau is evident: over the past two years, more than 75% of the freshmen at Plateau have enrolled in the optional job-op program. Moreover, at Plateau, the grades of job-op students are consistently higher than those of other students, 90% of the job-op students receive job offers within a month after their graduation, and most former job-op students report much success in their careers."

With this argument, the academic vice president attempts to persuade the faculty of Waymarsh University that a job-opportunity (job-op) program being offered at Plateau Technical College should be adopted in order for the university to better accomplish its academic goals. To support the argument, the vice president writes that the success of Plateau’s job-op program is shown by the enrollment of 75% of freshmen at that school, that the grades of the job-op students are consistently higher than those of other students, that 90% of the job-op students receive job offers within one month of graduation, and that most former job-op students report much success in their careers. The vice president’s argument suffers from several critical flaws as well as a false analogy and it should therefore be rejected.

In the first place, the argument is critically weakened by directly comparing the academic goals of a university with a job opportunity program at a technical college. A university will have a different student body makeup than that of a technical college – therefore these students will have different wants and needs regarding the academic programs that are offered. Moreover, there is no relationship demonstrated between the academic goals of Waymarsh University (which are never mentioned) and the job opportunity program at Plateau Technical College. This “apples to oranges” comparison between the academic goals of a university and a job opportunity program at a technical college represents a false analogy that cannot be overcome in this argument.

Furthermore, the mere fact that 75% of the freshmen have enrolled in the optional job opportunity program at Plateau Technical College does not necessarily indicate its success. There may be underlying factors that have caused three-fourths of the freshmen at the school to enroll in the program, such as allowing for an easier path to a degree or that the students are allowed to work to pay all or part of their tuition fees, for example. Even assuming that such an enrollment rate indicates the success of the program at Plateau, it simply has nothing to do with the accomplishment of Waymarsh University’s academic goals. On the contrary, the program might actually be a detriment to the accomplishment of such goals for the university by distracting students from their studies by allowing them to work while going to school.

The vice president also cites as evidence of the success of the Plateau job-op program the idea that the grades of the job-op students are consistently higher than those of the other students. This may not be support for the idea that academic goals are being reached but rather that the core curriculum courses are merely easier than those of the other students. Additionally, the fact that 90% of the job-op students at Plateau receive job offers within one month of graduation is cited in support of the argument.
The receipt of job offers would seem to have very little to do with Waymarsh’s accomplishment of academic goals. In fact, the job offers may be for very low-level jobs that most university students would not accept in the first place. Furthermore, the vice president states that most former job-op students report much success in their careers. Again, this has nothing to do with the academic goals of a university. It is only natural that any type of former students would report much success in their careers – no one wants to admit failure in their work-related pursuits!

In summary, the vice president’s argument is based on a false analogy and problematic reasoning that proves nothing. Without providing direct evidence that the success of the job-op program at the technical college is directly related to the accomplishment of academic goals of Waymarsh University, the vice president’s argument must be rejected.

(627 words)


参考译文


[题目]
下述文字摘自Waymarsh大学学术副校长致教职员工的一份备忘录。

“为了更好地实现Waymarsh大学的学术目标，我们应该采用高原技工学院所提供的“工作机会计划”，并竭力鼓励Waymarsh大学的所有学生参与到此项计划中来。高原技工学院“工作机会计划”的成功是显而易见的：在过去两年中，高原技工学院75%以上的新生报名参加了这一选修课性质的“工作机会计划”。此外，在高原技工学院，参加“工作机会计划”的学生的成绩一直要比其他学生的成绩高；有90%的“工作机会计划”学生在其毕业后的一个月内就获得工作聘任书，而大多数前“工作机会计划”学生也宣称他们的职业生涯极为成功。”


[范文正文]

学术副校长试图用以上论点来使Waymarsh大学的教职员工相信，高原技工学院所提供的“工作机会计划”应予采用，以便使该大学更好地完成其学术目标。为了支持这一论点，这位副校长写道，高原技工学院“工作机会计划”的成功体现在以下几下方面：该校新生高达75%的报名参加率；参加该计划的学生的成绩一直要高于其他学生；参加该计划的90%的学生在毕业之后的一个月内就收到了工作聘用，以及大多数前“工作机会计划”学生宣称，他们的职业生涯甚为成功。这位副校长的论点含有多个严重漏洞及一项虚假类比，故应予摈弃。

首先，这一论点的一个严重缺陷在于将一所大学的学术目标与某一技工院校的“工作机会计划”直接地相提并论。一所大学的学生群体构成不同于一所技工学院的学生群体构成，因此这些学生会针对所提供的学术计划有着不同的需求。此外，备忘录作者没能证明在Waymarsh大学的学术目标（这些目标从未被具体提及过）和高原技工学院的“工作机会计划”之间存在着任何的联系。在一所大学的学术目标和一所技工学院的“工作机会计划”之间所作的“苹果对桔子”式的比较，代表着该论点中一种无法逾越的虚假类比。

此外，75%的新生报名参加了高原技工学院带有选修课性质的“工作机会计划”，这并不一定标志着这一计划的成功。可能有某些深层的因素导致该校3/4的新生报名参加该计划，例如，该计划使学生更易于获得学位，或者它可允许学生进行勤工俭学来部分或全部支付他们的学费，等等。即使我们假设这样的一种报名率确实标志着高原技工学院这一计划的成功，但它与Waymarsh大学实现其学术目标根本毫无关系。相反，这一计划可能会在实际上危及该大学学术目标的实现，因为允许学生边学习边工作，会使学生无法专注于他们的学业。

作为高原技工学院“工作机会计划”成功的证据，这位副校长还援引了这样一种看法，即参加“工作机会计划”的学生，其成绩一直高于其他学生。这或许无法当作学术目标正在被实现这一观点的依据，倒有可能恰恰相反，它表明这部分学生的核心课程只是比其他学生学的核心课程来得更容易罢了。此外，高原技工学院参加“工作机会计划”的学生中有90%的人在毕业后的一个月内就能获得工作录用，这一事实也被引用来支持此项论述。但获得录用似乎与 Waymarsh大学实现其学术目标几乎毫不相关。事实上，这些聘用书所针对的可能只是极为低端的工作，多数大学生根本就不会接受。另外，该副校长还说，大多数前“工作机会计划”的学生宣称其职业生涯极为成功。这又与大学的学术目标毫不相关。任何一类昔日的学生都会宣称他们的职业生涯甚为成功，这是再自然也不过的事情了，因为谁也不想承认他们在事业上无所建树。

总而言之，这位副校长的论点纯粹基于虚假类比以及成问题的逻辑推理，根本证明不了什么问题。由于没有提供直接的证据来证明在技工学院取得成功的“工作机会计划”与 Waymarsh大学学术目标的实现直接相关，这位副校长的论点应予摈弃。

imongUID：140258

argument

（空白）