关于Argument的一个困惑

FoxWillUID: 200790

在下是4月21号机考的菜鸟一只。最近在练习Argument作文时发现了一个问题：我写的Argument作文与新东方作文书上的例文攻击的逻辑错误之处有很大不同。因为曾经听大虾说过Argument要拿5分以上的话就不能漏过主要的逻辑错误。所以对于这个问题我很是担心，不知道这个Argument的主要逻辑错误到底是以什么标准评价。我也反覆对照我的作文和书上的例文，甚至觉得我挑的错误比例文挑的还要明显主要一些。对于这个问题，恳请前辈大虾和各位一同6月杀G的战友们指点一下。希望大家能讨论一下，不吝赐教 :)
下面再附上一篇我的作文和例文与之不同之处，请大家参照讨论，不胜感谢！

FoxWillUID: 200790

Argument172  
------题目------
The Mozart School of Music should obviously be the first choice of any music student aware of its reputation. First of all, the Mozart School stresses intensive practice and training, so that students typically begin their training at a very young age. Second, the school has ample facilities and up-to-date professional equipment, and its faculty includes some of the most distinguished music teachers in the world. Finally, many Mozart graduates have gone on to be the best known and most highly paid musicians in the nation.
------正文------

In this argument the author recommends that the Mozart School of Music should obviously be the first choice of any music student aware of its reputation. To substantiate this recommendation, the author cites some facts about the school's intensive practice and training as well as its facilities and equipment. Additionally the author mentions its graduates' situation as the evidence of his conclusion. Close scrutiny of each facts, however, reveals that none of them lends credible support to the recommendation.

A threshold problem with the argument involves the assumption that the intensive practice and training stressed by Mozart School indicate the students' commencement of music learning at a very young age, and further result in the students' achievement in music. Yet the author provides no evidence to justify this crucial assumption. Firstly, the author do not mention at what age the  Mozart School 's students will begin their intensive practice and training. Moreover, lacking evidence that beginning training at a very young age necessarily, at least partly, contributes to a music student's future accomplishment, it is entirely possible that being trained intensively in one's extremely early life may not influence his further development, or even plays a totally negative role. Given the scenarios above, the author's conclusion is unpersuasive at best.

Yet the author unfairly assumes that hiring some of the most distinguished music teachers equates ample facilities and school's own reputation. Without detailed information about the whole condition of the school's facilities and other aspects, it is as likely as that the some of the most distinguished music teachers consists just a small proportion of the school's facilities and the school is enjoying no reputation at all for some other reasons such as poor moral circumstance and so on.. Therefore, the author's reasoning is unjustifiable suffering from these possibilities.

Moreover, the fact that many Mozart graduates have gone on to be the best known and most highly paid musicians in the nation sheds no light on the conclusion that the Mozart School of Music should obviously be the first choice of any music student . Great possibility is that those "many graduates" mentioned above is just a small part of the entire population of its graduates. If this is the case, the fact would serve no goals of the author's recommendation.

Finally even the author can validate all the foregoing assumptions, the argument is still unconvincing. Because the author fails to exclude the possibility that one or other more music schools would be more suitable for some students even though The Mozart School of Music is a good choice. Without addressing this possibility ,the author's hasty recommendation that The Mozart School of Music should obviously be the first choice of any music student remains dubious.

In sum, as it stands the argument is wholly unpersuasive. To bolster it the author must offer clear evidence that the intensive practice and training stressed by Mozart School indicate the students' commencement of music learning at a young age, and further result in the students' achievement in music. To better assess the argument it would be useful to know the whole condition of the school's facilities and the statistics of its graduates' situation. Also useful would be any information of its competing schools.

FoxWillUID: 200790

我的作文攻击的是：
1 ，原文强调学校注重训练，注重训练不一定就意味着是从early age 开始训练，即使是早龄训练不一定能促成音乐成就；
2，学校雇佣了少数几个知名教师不一定意味着师资的出众，也不等同于学校声望的提高；
3，毕业生中出现“many”有成就的人不一定说明毕业生大部分有成就，也许只是一小部分；
4，没有考虑其他学校；也许还有更适合某些学生的学校。M学校就不一定是任何学生的首选了。

书上例文攻击的逻辑错误是：
1，学校在音乐方面的强化训练对于那些希望在其他学科也全方面发展的学生没有吸引力；
2，学校的先进设备和师资意味着高学费，很多学生也许无法承担；
3，很多毕业生也许想成为作曲家或者音乐教育家，题目提到的演奏家对于他们来说没有吸引力。

我认为例文主要是就题目中的any music student来攻击的，总是觉得好像这三点说的都是同一个错误。希望各位能为我指点一下，大家也可以广泛讨论一下，谢谢！！！

yifangcatUID: 141546

新东方的老师也说过：同一个argument，每个人都找的是一样的错误，而且新东方又不是ETS,他们的提纲不一定都是标准答案，不用自己吓自己。
你的驳斥点猴哥也提到许多，另外，如果你学过音乐，或知道一些的话，学音乐的孩子尤其是大师们几乎都是很小开始学的，而我个人认为 驳斥点应该是“集中训练”， 没有哪个学校（音乐学院）是这样教学生的，音乐讲究的是个性教育每个学生都是独立教授的，不知道熟悉这道题的G友怎么看，我25考，呵呵，共勉！

FoxWillUID: 200790

谢谢你的回复哦！还以为没人回我呢。呵呵，多谢啦！这样我就安心多了。
我在北京考，你呢？
加油啊！！！