（推荐新手看这个帖）我的AW笔记本（内有老外280的分析，资料基本上看这个就够了）

zhangheng1020UID: 2130513

[追星剑特训] [索引] 追星剑特训 For ISSUE

以前看过的，有了新问题，再看！
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... Dtype%26typeid%3D50
完成复习
CHAPTER1

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-10 14:24 编辑 ]

dinddind2003UID: 196353

临行之前再一次感谢，zhangheng，你的总结真的省了我不少时间，也给了我不少资料。
thanks a lot

zhangheng1020UID: 2130513

Argument写作快速入门   
作者：猴哥
来源：满分网



第一节 Argument 写作特点

Argument主要是要找到原文论断的逻辑错误（漏洞），然后，通过说出其它可能性，来攻击这些逻辑漏洞。

典型的论点：A地区（物种、人物）做了什么事情，得出一个结果。B地区（物种、人物）如果也这样做，也可以得出这个结果。

Argument要求找到逻辑漏洞后，还要进行有根据的论证。



第二节 Argument模板

第一段：1、归纳论点2、说明论点有问题。3、准备发起进攻

第二段：攻击论据（论据本身不成立）A有这样的结果，不一定是这个事情造成的。（1、其它原因 2、因果倒置 3、原因的真实性）

第三段攻击论证（类比不成立）A和B不同，A发生，B不一定可以发生。（范围不同、作用程度不同、时间不同、主客观不同：人的主观能力、因果倒置、事物与外界联系、不是说的一个事、是否能类比、会不会发生化学反应而改变、偷换概念、饱和度、绝对数量和相对数量、参照物不同、有其他的改变、还需要其他的条件限制或起作用、量够不够、程度）B有自己的特点。

第四段B这样做，似乎是合理的，但是，通过论证，不是这样。B在做出决定前，应该好好考虑一下其它的情况。



第三节 Argument主题阅读式备考法范例

Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour.  Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent.  But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period.  Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.


翻译：6个月前，Forestville地区提高了本地区公路上的最高时速限制，比原先提高了10公里。由于这个变化的影响，本地区车祸的数量提高了15%。但是，Elmsford地区（和Forestville地区相邻）并没有改变最高时速限制，它的车祸数量在同样的6个月里，反而有少量的减少。因此，如果Forestville市民想要减少公路上的车祸数量，他们应该想办法将本地区的最高时速限制减少到改变前的状态。

分析题目：
1、  找原题逻辑结构关系
论据：F地区提高最高时速限制10公里 ———〉车祸发生率增加15%     E地区（和F相邻）没有提高———〉车祸发生率没有增加
结论：F地区如果想要减少车祸，就要恢复到原来的最高时速限制。
第一段，1、说明论点有问题。2、归纳论点，准备发起进攻
The Argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned.  By making a comparison of the region of Forestville, the town with the higher speed limit and therefore automobile accidents, with the region of Elmsford, an area of a lower speed limit and subsequently fewer accidents, the Argument for reducing Forestville's speed limits in order to decrease accidents seems logical.

阅读式作文备考：
第一意群，The Argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned.（常用开头句型，记住）。这个论证说的不错，但是，理由不是完全充分。

第二意群，By making a comparison of the region of Forestville, the town with the higher speed limit and therefore automobile accidents, with the region of Elmsford, an area of a lower speed limit and subsequently fewer accidents, the Argument for reducing Forestville's speed limits in order to decrease accidents seems logical. 常用结构，将题目中的主要论点归纳出来。



第二段：第一轮攻击

攻击点：可能有其他原因，造成提高限速后车祸的增加。（不一定是限速引起的）（本段主题句）

论证结构：总——分——总  



However, the citizens of Forestville are failing to consider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidents after the raise in speed limit.  Such alternatives may include the fact that there are less reliable cars traveling the roads in Forestville, or that the age bracket of those in Elmsford may be more conducive to driving safely.  It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville than there are in Elmsford.  In addition, the citizens have failed to consider the geographical and physical terrain of the two different areas.  Perhaps Forestville's highway is in an area of more dangerous curves, sharp turns, or has many intersections or merging points where accidents are more likely to occur.  It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area.  Elmsford may be an area of easier driving conditions where accidents are less likely to occur regardless of the speed limit.



第一意群：However, the citizens of Forestville are failing to consider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidents after the raise in speed limit.（找他因，猴哥逻辑单题无忧中，常用的方法）可能有其他原因，造成提高限速后车祸的增加。（不一定是限速引起的）（本段中心句）

句型收获：However, the citizens of Forestville are failing to consider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidents after the raise in speed limit.



第二意群：Such alternatives may include the fact that there are less reliable cars traveling the roads in Forestville, or that the age bracket of those in Elmsford may be more conducive to driving safely.  It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville than there are in Elmsford.  In addition, the citizens have failed to consider the geographical and physical terrain of the two different areas.  Perhaps Forestville's highway is in an area of more dangerous curves, sharp turns, or has many intersections or merging points where accidents are more likely to occur.

有可能是因为F地区比E地区有更多的老弱和不熟练的驾车者；而且，人们可能忽略了两地地形地貌的差别；

（解释上一个意群，也就是本段中心句。这种首句题出本段论点，然后，展开解释的写作方法，实用简单，建议多使用。阅卷人最喜欢这样的句子结构，一目了然，很快就可以明白你要说什么）

（这种结构，在一段里面也可以用，不然，这么长的作文，如何写出来。）比如：（一个分观点）In addition, the citizens have failed to consider the geographical and physical terrain of the two different areas.

（将分观点详细说，举例） Perhaps Forestville's highway is in an area of more dangerous curves, sharp turns, or has many intersections or merging points where accidents are more likely to occur.

句型收获：It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville than there are in Elmsford.



第三意群：It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area.  Elmsford may be an area of easier driving conditions where accidents are less likely to occur regardless of the speed limit.

因此，人们应该更加关注以上的问题，而不是减少限速。E地区可能是一个行车条件比较好的地区，时速限制对它的影响不大。（总结，对上面的分论的总结。总-分-总，是个分段的基本结构）

句型收获：It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area.



至此，第一轮攻击完成。

攻击点：可能有其他原因，造成提高限速后车祸的增加。（不一定是限速引起的）（本段主题句）

论证结构：总——分——总  



第三段：第二轮攻击

攻击点：

1、6个月的时间，并不具有代表性。（以部分时间内出现的问题为依据，认定整个过程都会是这样。）

2、人口统计学攻击 (有可能，E地区的人不用行车很远去上班，甚至不用上班；现在F地区的人口，是否比6个月前多？如果多，有可能是因为人口多了，导致F地区路上的车辆多了而造成事故增加，而不是由于提高限速。)

3、危险的时间是否外出的情况在不同地区的不同（也许F地区的人习惯在清晨、黎明等不安全的时间驾车外出。而E地区的人不用这样做。）

论证结构：分——分——分（三个分论点）

A six-month period is not a particularly long time frame for the citizens to determine that speed limit has influenced the number of automobile accidents in the area.  It is mentioned in the Argument that Elmsford accidents decreased during the time period.  This may have been a time, such as during harsh weather conditions, when less people were driving on the road and therefore the number of accidents decreased.  However, Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced by employment or other requirements, were unable to avoid driving on the roads.  Again, the demographics of the population are important.  It is possible that Elmsford citizens do not have to travel far from work or work from their home, or do not work at all.  Are there more people in Forestville than there were sic months ago?  If so, there may be an increased number of accidents due to more automobiles on the road, and not due to the increased speed limits.  Also in reference to the activities of the population, it is possible that Forestville inhabitants were traveling during less safe times of the day, such as early in the morning, or during twilight.  Work or family habits may have encouraged citizens to drive during this time when Elmsford residents may not have been forced to do so.



第一意群：A six-month period is not a particularly long time frame for the citizens to determine that speed limit has influenced the number of automobile accidents in the area. It is mentioned in the Argument that Elmsford accidents decreased during the time period.

This may have been a time, such as during harsh weather conditions, when less people were driving on the road and therefore the number of accidents decreased.  However, Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced by employment or other requirements, were unable to avoid driving on the roads.

在6个月的时间进行判断，提高限速后，车祸的发生数量，时间太短。这6个月，可能具有一个比较糟糕的天气情况，人们驾车外出减少，因此车祸减少（E地区的情况），但是，F地区，可能因为工作或者其他原因，被迫驾车外出。（因为天气不好，所以F地区车祸增加，而此时刚好提高限速，大家都以为是提高限速惹的祸）

句型收获： A six-month period is not a particularly long time frame for the citizens to determine…… （时间攻击中，经常使用）



第二意群：Again, the demographics of the population are important.  It is possible that Elmsford citizens do not have to travel far from work or work from their home, or do not work at all.  Are there more people in Forestville than there were sic months ago?  If so, there may be an increased number of accidents due to more automobiles on the road, and not due to the increased speed limits.

人口统计学也很关键，有可能，E地区的人不用行车很远去上班，甚至不用上班；现在F地区的人口，是否比6个月前多？如果多，有可能是因为人口多了，导致F地区路上的车辆多了而造成事故增加，而不是由于提高限速。

句型收获：Are there more people in Forestville than there were sic months ago?  If so, there may be  疑问句的形式，句型多变。



第三意群：Also in reference to the activities of the population, it is possible that Forestville inhabitants were traveling during less safe times of the day, such as early in the morning, or during twilight.  Work or family habits may have encouraged citizens to drive during this time when Elmsford residents may not have been forced to do so.

参考人们一天的活动，也许F地区的人习惯在清晨、黎明等不安全的时间驾车外出。而E地区的人不用这样做。（危险的时间是否外出的情况在不同地区的不同）



第二阶段攻击结束

攻击点：

1、6个月的时间，并不具有代表性。（以部分时间内出现的问题为依据，认定整个过程都会是这样。）

2、人口统计学攻击 (有可能，E地区的人不用行车很远去上班，甚至不用上班；现在F地区的人口，是否比6个月前多？如果多，有可能是因为人口多了，导致F地区路上的车辆多了而造成事故增加，而不是由于提高限速。)

3、危险的时间是否外出的情况在不同地区的不同（也许F地区的人习惯在清晨、黎明等不安全的时间驾车外出。而E地区的人不用这样做。）

论证结构：分——分——分（三个分论点）





第四段：总论



Overall, the reasoning behind decreasing Forestville's speed limit back to its original seems logical as presented above since the citizens are acting in their own best interests and want to protect their safety.  However, before any final decisions are made about the reduction in speed limit, the citizens and officials of Forestville should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for the increased number of accidents over the six-month period as compared to Elmsford.



第一意群：Overall, the reasoning behind decreasing Forestville's speed limit back to its original seems logical as presented above since the citizens are acting in their own best interests and want to protect their safety.

总之，论题中的关于降低F地区的限速似乎是合理的，因为市民们是出于他们的利益并且想要保证他们的安全。（让步，说论题似乎合理）



第二意群：However, before any final decisions are made about the reduction in speed limit, the citizens and officials of Forestville should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for the increased number of accidents over the six-month period as compared to Elmsford.

但是，在做出最后的决定之前，F地区的市民和政府都应该考虑到所有其它的可能。



这最后一段，一定要背下。几乎所有的Argument论题，都可以用这种方式结尾。

你的论点有道理，但是，在做决定之前，要仔细考虑各种情况。



句型收获：Overall, the reasoning behind decreasing Forestville's speed limit back to its original seems logical as presented above since the citizens are acting in their own best interests and want to protect their safety.  However, before any final decisions are made about the reduction in speed limit, the citizens and officials of Forestville should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for the increased number of accidents over the six-month period as compared to Elmsford.



  

最后总结：

从三个方面总结：

1、文章内容

a)主要是论题的分析，b)找逻辑漏洞要“准”，c)攻击逻辑漏洞要“狠”、“准”、“全”

题目分析：

论据：F地区提高最高时速限制 10公里———〉车祸发生率增加15%       E地区（和F相邻）没有提高———〉车祸发生率没有增加

结论：F地区如果想要减少车祸，就要恢复到原来的最高时速限制。

逻辑漏洞：以偏概全（地理位置上、时间上、人口统计学上的不同）  

攻击点：

1、有可能是因为F地区比E地区有更多的老弱和不熟练的驾车者；而且，人们可能忽略了两地地形地貌的差别；

2、6个月的时间，并不具有代表性。（以部分时间内出现的问题为依据，认定整个过程都会是这样。）

3、人口统计学攻击 (有可能，E地区的人不用行车很远去上班，甚至不用上班；现在F地区的人口，是否比6个月前多？如果多，有可能是因为人口多了，导致F地区路上的车辆多了而造成事故增加，而不是由于提高限速。)

4、危险的时间是否外出的情况在不同地区的不同（也许F地区的人习惯在清晨、黎明等不安全的时间驾车外出。而E地区的人不用这样做。）



2、文章结构

总——分——分——总

第一段，1、说明论点有问题。2、归纳论点，准备发起进攻

第二段：第一轮攻击

第三段：第二轮攻击

第四段：总结



3、文章文采

句型收获：

However, the citizens of Forestville are failing to consider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidents after the raise in speed limit.

It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville than there are in Elmsford.

It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area.

A six-month period is not a particularly long time frame for the citizens to determine…… （时间攻击中，经常使用）

Are there more people in Forestville than there were sic months ago?  If so, there may be  疑问句的形式，句型多变。

Overall, the reasoning behind decreasing Forestville's speed limit back to its original seems logical as presented above since the citizens are acting in their own best interests and want to protect their safety.  However, before any final decisions are made about the reduction in speed limit, the citizens and officials of Forestville should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for the increased number of accidents over the six-month period as compared to Elmsford.

（结尾的经典句型）



分析ets的评价，你会发现，他们也是从以上三个方面分析的：



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



-- the two regions might have drivers of different ages and experience;

-- Forestville's topography, geography, cars, and/or roads might

   contribute to accidents;

-- six months might be an insufficient amount of time for determining

   that the speed limit is linked to the accident rate;

-- demographics might play a role in auto accidents;

-- population and auto density should be considered; and

-- the times of day when drivers in the two regions travel might be relevant.



The points are cogently developed and are linked in such a way as to create a logically organized essay.  Transitions together with interior connections create a smoothly integrated presentation.  For the most part, the writer uses language correctly and well and provides excellent variety in syntax.  The minor flaws (e.g., using "less" instead of "fewer") do not detract from the overall high quality of the critique.  This is an impressive 6 paper.



1、文章内容：

Alternatives mentioned are that



-- the two regions might have drivers of different ages and experience;

-- Forestville's topography, geography, cars, and/or roads might

   contribute to accidents;

-- six months might be an insufficient amount of time for determining

   that the speed limit is linked to the accident rate;

-- demographics might play a role in auto accidents;

-- population and auto density should be considered; and

-- the times of day when drivers in the two regions travel might be relevant.



2、文章结构

The points are cogently developed and are linked in such a way as to create a logically organized essay.  Transitions together with interior connections create a smoothly integrated presentation.



3、文章文采

For the most part, the writer uses language correctly and well and provides excellent variety in syntax.  The minor flaws (e.g., using "less" instead of "fewer") do not detract from the overall high quality of the critique.  This is an impressive 6 paper.

zhangheng1020UID: 2130513

Argument攻略   

作者：davidjacky
来源：寄托天下  

Argument主要是要找到原文论断的逻辑错误（漏洞），然后，通过说出其它可能性，来攻击这些逻辑漏洞。

一、ARGUMENT结构性
ARGUMENT的结构比较固定，易于掌握，一般都能写出个标准的“经典5段式”，可以说这种模式是完全可以采用，同时也是最好的，最有效的。尽管现在有些网友对此有些看法，但是我从很多高分作文至少我周围的朋友调查来看，ETS对这种经典的模式不但不恶心，反而表示认可，从范文中我们也能见到这种写法，因此从今天开始大家就要注意一点，为了写好这种模式，必须有很快的打字速度，当然天生打字慢的（只要不是在键盘上找字母的人）也没有关系，勤加练习，然后我会给你们这些考生一个折衷模板，同样保证你的得分。这种文章的关键是抓住逻辑错误，这是拿到高分的第一点，最重要的一点。如果写了很多，没抓住要害，语言再好也拿不到高分。攻击的语言可以不专业化，但是抓住错误最关键。如果文字色彩很专业化，可以表现出逻辑修养，攻击的很地道，当然可以增加分值。写作时间为30分钟。总之，关于Argument习作，我想主要带着大家来理解和分析七种常见的逻辑错误，然后给大家写几个模板，但是最关键还是大家自己在备考的过程中不断的练习，最后达到游刃有余的地步，我们的目标是Argument上六分。好，下面我们从ETS的范文入手，来详细的看看如何写作。

二、范文点评
Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour. Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent. But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period. Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.
简单翻译：6个月前，Forestville地区提高了本地区公路上的最高时速限制，比原先提高了10公里。由于这个变化的影响，本地区车祸的数量提高了15%。但是，Elmsford地区（和Forestville地区相邻）并没有改变最高时速限制，它的车祸数量在同样的6个月里，反而有少量的减少。因此，如果Forestville市民想要减少公路上的车祸数量，他们应该想办法将本地区的最高时速限制减少到改变前的状态。
分析题目：找到原题逻辑结构关系
论据：    F地区提高最高时速限制 10公里 ------〉 车祸发生率增加15%
          E地区（和F相邻）没有改变最高时速限制------〉少量的减少
结论：    F地区如果想要减少车祸，就要恢复到原来的最高时速限制。
大家注意我们一定要搞清结论是什么，这一点我们可以通过信号性标志词来判断：thus, therefore, so, consequently等等。
The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. （说明论点有问题）By making a comparison of the region of Forestville, the town with the higher speed limit and therefore automobile accidents, with the region of Elmsford, an area of a lower speed limit and subsequently fewer accidents, the argument for reducing Forestville's speed limits in order to decrease accidents seems logical.（归纳论点，准备发起进攻）

第二段：第一轮攻击
攻击点：可能有其他原因，造成提高限速后车祸的增加。（不一定是限速引起的）（本段主题句）
论证结构：总--分--总
However, the citizens of Forestville are failing to consider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidents after the raise in speed limit.（它因法，这个以后我们也会讲到，也就是说造成提高限速后车祸的增加可能有其他原因，ISSUE一样，这也是本段中心句）Such alternatives may include the fact that fewer)àthere are less (less reliable cars traveling the roads in Forestville, or that the age bracket of those in Elmsford may be more conducive to driving safely. It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville than there are in Elmsford. (可能原因：有可能是因为F地区比E地区有更多的老弱和不熟练的驾车者) In addition, the citizens have failed to consider the geographical and physical terrain of the two different areas. Perhaps Forestville's highway is in an area of more dangerous curves, sharp turns, or has many intersections or merging points where accidents are more likely to occur.(人们可能忽略了两地地形地貌的差别,将分观点详细说，举例)It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area. Elmsford may be an area of easier driving conditions where accidents are less likely to occur regardless of the speed limit.（这是个总结。因此，人们应该更加关注以上的问题，而不是减少限速。E地区可能是一个行车条件比较好的地区，时速限制对它的影响不大。）这种首句题出本段论点，然后，展开解释的写作方法，实用简单，为广大考生所采用，也是ETS阅卷人最喜欢的句子结构，一目了然。

A six-month period is not a particularly long time frame for the citizens to determine that speed limit has influenced the number of automobile accidents in the area. It is mentioned in the argument that Elmsford accidents decreased during the time period. This may have been a time, such as during harsh weather fewer) people were driving on the road and thereforeàconditions, when less (less the number of accidents decreased. However, Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced by employment or other requirements, were unable to avoid driving on the roads.（仅仅以6个月的时间进行判断是没有道理的。因为提高限速后，6个月相对车祸的发生数量来讲太短。或许这6个月是一个比较糟糕的天气情况，人们驾车外出减少，因此车祸减少（E地区的情况），但是，F地区，可能因为工作或者其他原因，被迫驾车外出。（因为气候条件不好，所以F地区车祸增加，而此时刚好提高限速，大家都以为是提高限速惹的祸）Again, the demographics of the population are important. It is possible that Elmsford citizens do not have to travel far from work or work from their home, or do not work at all. Are there more people in Forestville than there were sic months ago? If so, there may be an increased number of accidents due to more automobiles on the road, and not due to the increased speed limits.（人口统计学也很关键，有可能E地区的人不用开车去上班，甚至不用上班；现在F地区的人口，是否比6个月前多。有可能是因为人口增加导致F地区路上的车辆增多而造成交通事故增加，而不是由于提高限速。这个地方有个疑问句的形式，符合ETS句型多变的要求）Also in reference to the activities of the population, it is possible that Forestville inhabitants fewer)safe times of the day, such as early inàwere traveling during less (less the morning, or during twilight. Work or family habits may have encouraged citizens to drive during this time when Elmsford residents may not have been forced to do so.（参考人们一天的活动，也许F地区的人习惯在清晨、黎明等不安全的时间驾车外出。而E地区的人不用这样做。）

Overall, the reasoning behind decreasing Forestville's speed limit back to its original seems logical as presented above since the citizens are acting in their own best interests and want to protect their safety.（总之，论题中的关于降低F地区的限速似乎是合理的，因为市民们是出于他们的利益并且想要保证他们的安全。让步语气，说论题似乎合理）However, before any final decisions are made about the reduction in speed limit, the citizens and officials of Forestville should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for the increased number of accidents over the six-month period as compared to Elmsford.(但是，在做出最后的决定之前，F地区的市民和政府都应该考虑到所有其它的可能。) 个人认为这个不失为一种较好的结尾模板形式。

下面看看ETS的评价，你们有什么收获呢？
This outstanding essay begins by noting that the argument "seems logical." It then proceeds to discuss possible alternative explanations for the increase in car accidents and provides an impressively full analysis. Alternatives mentioned are that：
-- the two regions might have drivers of different ages and experience;
-- Forestville's topography, geography, cars, and/or roads might
contribute to accidents;
-- six months might be an insufficient amount of time for determining
that the speed limit is linked to the accident rate;
-- demographics might play a role in auto accidents;
-- population and auto density should be considered; and
-- the times of day when drivers in the two regions travel might be relevant.（文章内容）

The points are cogently developed and are linked in such a way as to create a logically organized essay. Transitions together with interior connections create a smoothly integrated presentation.（文章结构） For the most part, the writer uses language correctly and well and provides excellent variety in syntax. The minor flaws (e.g., using "less" instead of "fewer") do not detract from the overall high quality of the critique. This is an impressive 6 paper.（文章文采）

文章分析完了，基本上大家对ARGUMENT有了一个清晰的了解了吧，现在想想我以前给大家讲的那个求爱的段子，大家是否还记得，我对那个女孩说：“丫头，我爱你，我喜欢你的性格。她说：“第一，这不代表你会娶我，第二，你喜欢我是因为你寂寞”呵呵，那个段子里的精华，以后我们还会慢慢体会到。



三、开头和结尾的写法和模板
开头和结尾用早已备好的模式（套路可以是老师给的也可以是自己写的，不是也没关系）和句型（宾语从句加点东西就可以了）迅速展开写作。开头段：第一句指出原论证的结论，由于有信号词（so, therefore, consequently, hence, thus等）的存在使得它们比较明显；第二、三句指出原论证的论据或者假设，第四句表明自己对原论证的判断。结尾段：首先用一句话指出原作者未能有效地支持自己的结论，然后用两个句子说明如何加强原论证，也就是把正文TS所指出的逻辑错误换个角度说一下。当然了，如果考场出现“不可抗拒”的原因导致大家没有足够的时间写个完整的结尾，我们的模板给出了相应的对策。总之，不管是开头还是结尾，我们需要用自己的词忠实的保留原始信息。

Beginning 1:
In this argument, the arguer recommends that…to support this conclusion the arguer cites the result of a resent survey that…moreover the arguer points out that… As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows.  

Beginning 2:
In this argument, the arguer concludes that…To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out that…In addition, the arguer assumes that / reasons that / cites the example of / cites the result of a recent study that…A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless it is.

Beginning 3:对打字速度慢的考生可以用如下模板：
The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By…, the argument…seems logical.不要具体restate立场了，只要简单写出如范文分析类似的几个原因就行，但是务必做到：写出文章的结论并且指明它是是错误的。事实上，对于A的开头和结尾的争论至今还在继续，但是ETS从来没有说过公道话，打字速度快的还是按照孙远等前辈老师总结的那样写，至少没有说写成这样的开头和结尾被扣分了。

Beginning 4:这是当年郑宁老师的模板
Merely based on unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the statement draws a conclusion that---. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out evidence that….In addition, he indicates that…Furthermore, he reasons/asserts/infers that…However, this alone neither constitutes a logical argument in favor of the conclusion nor provides compelling support making the argument sound. The arguer ignores certain important concerns, which must be addressed to prove. In my point of view, this argument suffers from N flaws.

Beginning 5:推荐打字慢的同学用，记得变成自己的东西，不要一字不改
Merely depended on a series of unwarranted assumptions and dubious evidence, the author comes to the conclusion that--------On the surface, the argument appears to be somewhat logical, however, in actuality, this alone neither provides compelling evidence to make the argument sound nor organizes a logical argument in favor of the conclusion.

Beginning 6:东方另一位老师的模板
In this argument/analysis, the arguer concludes /claims /recommends/ predicts/ advocates that…To support /strengthen /solidify /justify /substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out that… /provides the evidence of…/sets the result of the survey of…In addition/Furthermore, the arguer reasons that…However, a careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is/The argument is unconvincing for N critical falses/The argument is problematic for N reasons/faults with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions.

Ending 1:
To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should provide more information concerning… to better evaluate the argument, we need more concrete evidence that… otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable.

Ending 2:
In summary, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning… / provide evidence to rule out other possible causes of…To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding…  

Ending 3:
Overall, the reasoning …seems logical as presented above since … However, before any final decisions are made about…, …should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for ….

Ending 4:
To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to the arguer’s claim. To make the argument more convincing/To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to provide more specific evidence concerning that ….

Ending 5:郑宁老师
To sum up, though the argument seems to be plausible, in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out such key issues, but also cites in the analysis the evidence, which does not lend strong support to what arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to take the following conditions into consideration:….（如果来不及填，考场这一句就不要了）If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.


紧急结尾：
To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains.
这个结论是缺少可信度的，因为这段分析里所引用的证据并不能强有力的支持作者的主张。

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned.按照这段论述的现状来看是推理不严密的。

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands.
总结起来看，这段论述是不具有说服力的。

In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading.这段论述所得到的结论是无效的，是使人误入歧途的。



四、中间的写法和模板，Argument之新七宗罪
A.先介绍信号词：
In the first place, In the second place, In the third place
First of all, In addition, Finally
To begin with, Furthermore, Last but not least
Most obviously, In addition, Finally
The major problem with this argument is that…/Another problem that weakens/ undermines the logic of this argument is that…/Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out another flaw (several other flaws) that undermines the argument.

B.攻击的方法：
例证法： for example / instance
假设法： if, even if , given that (考虑到) ，granted that (姑且承认) only when (只有当) ，unless , in this / that case , even so Unless the arguer provides substantial evidence regarding / concerning / as to …, the assumption that … is unfounded / problematic / unconvincing …
推测法： it is possible that … , it is equally possible that … , another possibility is that … , it is also likely that … possibly , perhaps

C. Argument用来攻击的素材的选择
有了上面的方法，素材从何而来呢？第一，来源于自己的亲身经历；第二，其他人的经历，如范文中常见的例子可以拿来用用。比Issue的素材选择容易多。

zhangheng1020UID: 2130513

D. Argument之新七宗罪
注意事项：模板的作用在于抛砖引玉，不能完全依赖，要加入自己东西，用上面的攻击武器进行展开论述，不展开等于没有写，什么是展开论述？举个例子说：你说调查的回访者人数不明导致统计学没有意义，那么你一定举个例子for example, 调查了500只有1个回答了问题。这样就可以了。这个例子比较极端，目的是让大家记住，你写的时候改一下50/500等，另外，模板在练习中逐渐固定形式以后就不要随便改了，花样不要太多，不要花太多精力，再好的模板也不能代替内容，就像我们常常说美女七分长相三分打扮，没有长相是绝对不是美女，这也就是我们所说的文章的内容，不过我们有了Issue的写作功底以后，基本文章句式不愁，好，下面具体谈谈几种常见的逻辑错误。

第一宗罪：无效调查（规模，数量，方式，时间，等）
这类错误最常见也十分简单。从今天起，大家应该做到对survey/study/report/poll 字眼很敏感，一看到这些就一定说明它有问题，在分析argument题目要养成这种“良好”的习惯。我们按照如下模板操作：

段首句：The argument rests/relies/depends on a survey/study/report/poll that-----------However /Nonetheless/Nevertheless, the survey cited here is too vague to be informative.
The arguer provides no assurances that the survey on which the argument depends is statistically reliable.
The conclusion unjustifiably relies on the poll/study (that...).

采访对象及形式：76/97/105/111/147
Model 1
a) To begin with, the validity of the survey is doubtful.
b) Lacking information about the number of employees surveyed and the number of respondents, it is impossible to access the validity of the results.
c) For example, if 200 employees were surveyed but only 2 responded, the conclusion that --- would be highly suspect.
d) Because the argument offers no evidence that would rule out these interpretations, the results of the survey are insufficient to support the conclusion.

Model 2
a) the poll cited by the author is too vague to be informative//reliable.
b) The claim does not indicate who conducted the poll, who responded, or how the poll was conducted.
c) Until these questions are answered, the results are worthless as evidence for ---.

Model 3
a) We are not informed that how many people were surveyed but did not respond. If, for instance, 500 subjects were studied, but no more than 50 echoed, the conclusion would be highly suspectable.
b) The author fails to point out that when the survey was conducted. If the change is very recent, it is possible that insufficient data have been gleaned to draw such a conclusion, an unconvincing one. [If-----, before---, ---, ]
c) The author fails to point out that how the survey was conducted. If who conducted the by themselves, and the question is “”, it is obvious that if-----. Or if these questions were leading, people might echo with expected answers, thus the results would be greatly unconvincing.

Model 4
The claim does not provide evidence to confirm the reliability of the poll/study, because the poll/study fails to indicate who conducted the poll/study, who responded, or how the poll/study was conducted to lend credibility to these claims. Moreover, while the phrase "study/poll suggests" may appear.....

样本不足11/15/53样本数目大于30
Model 1:
The evidence that the author provides is insufficient to support the conclusion draw from it. （1 example is rarely sufficient to establish a general conclusion.） Unless it can be shown that A1 is representative of A, the conclusion…is completely unwarranted. In fact, in face of such limited evidence, it is fallacious to draw any conclusion at all.

Model 2:
Samples for the survey should be statistically reliable. Unfortunately, from the survey we find little sign of such procedures for sampling, thus doubting whether the respondents constitute a sufficiently large sample so as to be representative of the overall population of the nation.

Model 3:
The author provides no enough strong evidence to support the claim that..... The example cited that..... , while suggestive of this, is insufficient to warrant the truth because there is no reason to believe that the data from ..... is representive of the ...... For example....

随机性15/28/115
Model 1:
Since the arguer makes a claim about…, in general, samples for the survey should be able to represent all…However, from the survey quoted in this argument, we find no sign of such procedures for random samplings, and have good reasons to doubt if the sample is representative enough to reflect the general altitude of…as a whole.

Model 2:
Another problem is the representativeness of the respondents. Were they representative of all the…? Were… chosen for the survey chosen randomly or did they volunteer for the survey?…

Model 3:
From the survey we find little sign of such procedures for random sampling, thus doubting whether the respondents are representative of the overall population of the nation. If the subjects are only limited to a certain city or geographic region, the results of the survey will be unconvincing.

补充一点：有些数字如：模糊数字many, high, low, few等等，绝对数字100万等等，相对数字95％等等。这些数字看起来很大，但是我们要做的工作就是故意说他们小，没有统计意义之类的。看到这类数字一方面可以完全按照样本不足的模板来处理，也可以按照自己的意思来表达：例如：NO.6说“爵士乐在M非常流行”，列举了“去年夏天10万多人参加了M的爵士音乐节”位论据，我们可以这么攻击：10万人是个很大的数字，但是就拥有1千万人的M来讲，这个数字并不能说明爵士乐在M很流行。当然还有一些很小的数据，我们自然就直接说他们不能够说明问题，是个别现象。数字问题往往可以归纳到其它问题中，单独列出来没有必要，下面举几个例简单说说：6/40/63/108//3/12/39。

NO.63说S公园的受欢迎程度下降了，因为有录像显示平均每天只有50辆车，与之相比，位于商业区中心地带的C小公园在工作日每天游客超过150人。我们可以这么攻击：50辆车是大公交车8路，每车40人，因此参观的人数还是很多；也可以说S公园周末人巨多，大家都去picnic，而C公园周末人很少，S公园在周末深受欢迎。

NO.12A工厂的工伤事故比邻近的P工厂多30％，P的每班工作时间比我们的短一个小时。这个地方完全可以归结到它因法，这个以后我们会讲到，多的30％仅仅是因为A厂规模大造成的。

我个人认为数字这个字眼被单独提出来批判是没有必要的，我们看到数字以后有这样一个敏感就可以了，毕竟它比英文好认。


第二宗罪：无理假设（无前提证据的假设）46/55/72/78
NO.55这一措施（修建自行车道减少交通拥挤）将会取得成功因为SV的很多市民是积极的自行车爱好者。很明显作者假设了这些市民从这里走，并且是骑自行车。我们的攻击点自然就可以落在这里：尽管他们是自行车爱好者，但是市民们上班的地点很远所以开车上班。

Model 1:
a) The author assumes that --- will---,/A is necessary to B.
b) However, this is not necessarily the case./no evidence is stated in the argument to support this assumption.
c) It is possible that ----./Perhaps ---.

Model 2
a) The author falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that 作者的错误前提。
b) In fact/Actually, this is not necessarily the case.
c) For example, it is most likely that 相反例子。
d) Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.


第三宗罪：因果关系（2/4/7/25）
因果关系还可以分解，但是我们没有必要分得太细，事实上，我们指出其它原因存在时，似乎这种叫法也不太合适，好了，不罗嗦，我们看例子。

NO.2B社区的业主实施了将一系列关于该社区的庭院应如何布置以及房屋应涂何种颜色的规定。从那以后，B的地产平均价格翻了三番。作者认为房价上涨是由于房子涂上规定的颜色。我们用通货膨胀导致房价上涨来攻击作者。

NO.25OV建造了一个新的市立高尔夫球场和度假旅馆。过去两年中，OV的旅客增加了…。作者认为新的高尔夫球场和度假旅馆吸引了旅客。我们可以用因为新的景点开放导致旅客人数增加。

Model 1
a) the author commits the “After Of This, Therefore, Because Of This” fallacy.
b) The author assumes that A caused B.
c) The line of the reasoning is that because A before B, the former event caused the latter.
d) But this is fallacious reasoning unless other possible causal explanations have been considered and ruled out.
e) For example, perhaps A1 is the cause of these events or perhaps B is caused by A2.

Model 2
a) The author uses the statistical relationship//positive correlation between A and B to establish causality.
b) However, The fact that A coincides with B does not necessarily prove that A caused
c) There may be other factors that could have caused B/contributed to B. d) Such as A1, A2, and A3.

Model 3
a) the author fails to establish a causal relationship between the fact A and the claim B.
b) This argument is unacceptable if there is no compelling evidence to support the connection between these two events. c)Perhaps, for example,…

Model 4
First of all,the author assumes that B caused A . This argument commits the fallacy of assuming that just because A follows B, the second event has been caused by the first. The causal claim based on the correlation is premature unless the author can rule out other factors. For example, perhaps...... Yet another possibility is that...

Model 5:
the author attempts to establish a causal/positive relationship between the fact that ----------and the claim that--------------[between two matters----and---]. This argument, nonetheless, is based on an oversimplified analysis of the cause of----------and the presumptuous correlation accordingly is unacceptable. Actually, it is equally possible that-----or it is possible that-----------. Without ruling out such alternative explanation(s) the author can not convince me that -------necessarily results in ------------


第四宗罪：错误类比（4/52/79/10/16/83/43/125）
分为两类：纵向对比，同一事物不同空间、时间的比较；横向类比，同时间不同事物的比较。

NO.4本市两家最大的房地产经纪公司－AR和FR之中，A更优秀一点。A有40名经纪人，而F只有25个，且很多是兼职工作。而且，A去年的收入F的两倍，其平均房价为$168000，而F仅为$144000。在A销售的房屋卖得也更快：十年前，我把我的房产交给F，它用了四个多月才卖出去；去年，我在A卖了另一处房产，仅用一个月就售出了。因此，要想让你的房产卖的更快更好，你应该选择A。

a.时间变了，售楼的速度是无法比较的
b.楼房地价格是有好多因素决定的，售楼时间也是一样。所以楼房平均价格比较说明不了问题。
c.相同的人力，只有20％领先，而不是200％的绝对领先，无法说明优势。

Model 1
a) Analogies draw between A and B are highly suspect because there are many serious differences.
b) While A ----, B----.// For example, A----, however, B----.
c) Thus, it is likely much more difficult for B to do---.

Model 2
a) the reason/argument rests on the assumption that A is analogous to/similar to B in all respects
b) This assumption is weak, since although there are points of comparison between A and B, there are many dissimilarities as well.
c) For example, A----, however, B----.  

Model 3
a) The author also commits the fallacy of “all things are equal”.
b) The fact that happened two years ago is not a sound evidence to draw a conclusion that ---.
c) The author assumes without justification that the background conditions have remained the same at different times or at different locations.
d) However, it is not clear in this argument whether the current conditions at A are the same as they used to be two years ago.
e) Thus it is impossible to conclude that ---.

Model 4:
Although there are points of comparison, many dissimilarities are remained. The argument, thus, relying on the assumption that-------is analogous to --------in all aspects, is so weak. It is, for example, possible that------It is also possible that -----------In either event, only relying on such a simple mimicry of-----there would be little effective.


第五宗罪：急于概括（32/54/64/87/140）
NO.87这些举措无疑将会显著增加我们的盈利。作者急急忙忙下了这么一个结论，但是我们知道利润的影响因素很多，再说卖的多不意味着获利多。

NO.32H居民不再需要开车往来于商场，因而将会导致H汽车燃油消费量的下降。我们可以如下攻击：人们开车购物所消耗的油量只有很小部分，由于网上购物而间接导致的油量减少更是微不足道。

Model 1:
There is no thorough lost-benefit analysis in the argument. If the increase of cost overweighs that of benefits…will fall in trouble of losing rather than gaining money. Also, the author neglects the fact of competition.

Model 2:
The author commit a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if …, it does not follow that…It is highly possible other factors may have contributed to …For instance,…Besides, the arguer does not provide any solid information concerning …Unless…, which is unkown for this argument, there is guarantee that…

Without ruling out these and other possible factors, the author cannot confidently conclude that…

Model 3:
The author assumes too hastily that----necessarily results in-----. However, it is not the case. If---------------------. The author, thus, cannot safely draw any significant conclusion or prediction.


第六宗罪：言行不一（55/225）
比如说一些承诺、倾向性行为。
NO.55回应者说它们愿意用比当前更多的时间骑车。我可以攻击：愿意不等于真正去做。
The author appreciates who’s strong commitment to something to some extent. However, we know the fact that to make a commitment is one thing, to keep it is far more difficult. There is no indication that they might fulfill their promise. As a consequence, the author could not make any prediction.


第七宗罪：非此即彼（二选一，忽略其他同类）（204/223）
NO.204作者建议本周的农场主应该把现有的种植蔗糖的土地用于种植花生。我们可以攻击：难得只有花生可以种植吗？

NO.223作者说A好，我们不应该选M。我们可以攻击：难道只有这两家可以选择吗？
The author’s recommendation rests on the unlikely assumption that the company has only two alternatives-…and …In all likelihood…can engage one of many other…instead. Thus, to some extent the author recommends… over not just… but over any other…the recommendation is unwarranted.

补充说明：实际操作中，我们应该多找几个漏洞，按照我介绍的方法自己找，不要一开始就看参考资料，那样一点作用都没有，平时练习找4个，考试中写三个好写的就可以，当然如果你有时间可以多写，但记住一条，列出漏洞一定要展开，空架子是得不了高分的。另外，最好我们狠批明显错误的。

zhangheng1020UID: 2130513

Argument逻辑错误分类   

来源：太傻网
庄子整理版


1. 假性因果－Post Hoc (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, False Cause, Questionable Cause,
Confusing Coincidental Relationships With Causes)
A Post Hoc is a fallacy with the following form:
A occurs before B.
Therefore A is the cause of B.

2. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Confusing Cause and Effect)Confusing Cause and Effect is a fallacy that has the following general form:
A and B regularly occur together.
Therefore A is the cause of B.

辨析：
In the case of a Post Hoc fallacy ( http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html ), the error is that a person is accepting that A is the cause of B simply because A occurs before B. In the case of the Fallacy of Ignoring a Common Cause

( http://www.nizkor.org/features/fall...mmon-cause.html ) A is taken to be the cause of B when there is, in fact, a third factor that is the cause of both A and B.

3. 错误类比－Weak Analogy (False Analogy / Faulty Analogy / Questionable Analogy)Form:
A is like B.
B has property P.
Therefore, A has property P.
(Where the analogy between A and B is weak.)
值得参考的网站：www.fallacyfiles.org

4. 调查研究中样本无代表性，非随机样本，偏性样本－Unrepresentative Sample (Biased Sample)This is a fallacy affecting statistical inferences, which are arguments of the following
form:
N% of sample S has characteristic C. Therefore, N% of population P has characteristic C. (Where sample S is a subset of set P, the population.)

5. 草率结论－Hasty Generalization
This is the fallacy of generalizing about a population based upon a sample that is too small to be representative. If the population is heterogeneous, then the sample needs to be large enough to represent the population's variability. With a completely homogeneous population, a sample of one is sufficiently large, so it is impossible to put an absolute lower limit on sample size. Rather, sample size depends directly upon the variability of the population: the more heterogeneous a population, the larger the sample required. For instance, people tend to be quite variable in their political opinions, so that public opinion polls need fairly large samples to be accurate.

6. Affirming a Disjunct (选言枝) (Fallacy of Propositional Logic)
Form:
p or q.
p.
Therefore, not-q.

7. 分歧－Bifurcation (false dilemma)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
魏震整理版


1. Loose generalizations
Drawing conclusions about groups of people on the basis of stereotypes (陈词滥调).
Example: French people are more romantic.

2. Hasty generalizations －草率结论
Arriving at a conclusion without enough evidence.
Example: Asian-American students are better in math.

3. Circular Reasoning
Restating in different words what has already been stated.
Example: Dieting is hard because it requires consuming fewer calories. ？

4. Single cause-effect －假性因果
Claiming that only one event caused another when there may be no real connection.
Example: When I sat down at the computer it stopped working, so I must have done something wrong.

5. Slippery Slope ？
Assumes a chain of cause-effect relationships with very suspect connections.
Example: Because I failed my exam, my parents were mad, I lost my wallet, my car wouldn't start, and I got fired.

6. Non Sequitur －<拉>[逻]不合逻辑的推论，不根据前提推导的推论
The first part of the idea does not relate to the other.
Example: I did well in school because I always wore nice clothes.

7. Either/Or －Affirming a Disjunct (选言枝) (Fallacy of Propositional Logic)
Suggesting only two alternatives when the issue may be much more complex.
Example: America--love it or leave it!

8. False Authority －迷信权威，偶像崇拜
Draws attention away from the evidence and leans on the popularity of someone who may have little knowledge of the issue or product.
Example: Kathie Lee Gifford, a popular TV celebrity, says that cruises are wonderful, so they must be.

9. Ad Hominem －从个人偏好出发，非逻辑或理性的
Attacking the person instead of the ideas. －个人人身攻击
Example: Don't vote for Jerry Brown; he's a left-wing fanatic, a throwback to the 60s who meditates and eats health foods.

10. Bandwagon Thinking －流行思想，时髦想法
Claiming that most people agree so it must be right.
Example: I wouldn't have cheated on my income taxes, but everyone else does, so why shouldn't I? ？

11. Stacking the deck －暗中布局，作弊
Giving a slanted view of the issue by focusing only on one side. －只关注一面，而给出一个歪曲的观点
Example: I deserve to get an A in the class because I like the teacher, work hard, and attend class.

12. Appeal to Emotion －以情欺人
Exploiting the audience's feeling in order to get them on your side.
Example: I believe I deserve a scholarship because I am an orphan who grew up in a dysfunctional foster family.

13. Ignoring the question －忽略问题(的症结所在)
Changing the topic before it is really considered －偷换概念(命题)
Example: The criminal won't say where he was on the night of the crime, but he does remember being teased relentlessly as a child.

14. Trivial objections －斤斤计较
Can be similar to ad hominem in that it focuses on things unimportant to the issue at hand.
Example: I think Ross Perot would make a terrible president. His ears are huge.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lelephant整理版


1它因other alternatives
2原因本身存在的真实性The reliability of the study is dubious
3比较contract
4因果关系(无，倒置)correlation for causality
5想当然的把两个现象联系在一起 A is not the same as B
6统计的时间不足(时间攻击)

Besides these, there are other kinds such as:
7 circular reasoning: unwarranted two things substantiate each other.
8 biased sample (representation)
9 sufficiency of sample
10 Ad hominen: attack one person rather than his/her view.
11 Ad populum: What the public say is true or the truth of a thing can be determined by putting it into a votes; the democracy is good but not absolutely right.
12 Either-or thinking: There is no room for a middle ground or a thing is either at one point or at the other extremity but not at a mid point (so-called white-or-black fallacy)
13 The “all things are equal” fallacy: without considering the change of time, space and other external conditions which may lead to the alteration of evidence, thereby the results of the recommendation or prediction.
14 Non sequitor: the premise can’t certainly lead to the result or in other words the consequence does not entail the premise.
15 Straw man: falsify rather than represent the opponent’s view
16 “After this, Therefore Because of this”: A happens before B so A must result to B.
17 fallacy of equivocation: a word or phrase has been employed in different meanings throughout the argument. So-called the “stolen” transference of a concept in Chinese
18 Irrational appeals: accept ideas based on other bases, say authority, other than reasonableness
19 mistake the number for the proportion.
20 without comparison with others.
21 lack of comparison with the overall scenario
22 hasty or sweeping conclusion without considering other factors
23 inconsistency of concepts (simple identify A with B)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abysslear 整理版

1. treating the cause of a sequence of events as if it were the result of that sequence of events;  
2. rejecting a possible explanation without suggesting an alternative explanation;  
3. failing to consider the possibility that those who did not become ill shortly after eating the egg salad became ill later  
4. treating a lack of proof that something is the case as constituting sufficient proof that it is not the case;  
5. overlooking the possibility that some people are more susceptible to harmful bacteria than are other people;  
6. fails to specify the percentage of pregnant women who suffer from vitamin deficiency  
7. gives insufficient information about why pregnant women have higher vitamin requirements than do other groups;  
8. fails to employ the same reference group for both uses of the term “vitamin deficiency;  
9. provides insufficient information about the incidence of vitamin deficiency in other groups with high vitamin requirements  
10. uses higher requirements in an ambiguous manner;  
11. the argument reiterates its conclusion instead of providing a reason for it.  
12. the argument makes an irrelevant distinction between foreign and United States manufacturers  
13. the reason given for the ban undermines rather than supports the conclusion  
14. the reason given for the ban does not explain why images superimposed on the United States flag are offensive;  
15. the reason given for the ban applies only to a part of the group of manufacturers whose flags are included in the ban, but necessarily to all  
16. the reasoning is conclusive, that is, the conclusion cannot be false if the statements offered in its support are true;  
17. the reasoning is strong but not conclusive, if the statements offered in support of the conclusion are true, they provide good grounds for that conclusion, though it is possible that additional information might weaken the argument.  
18. the reasoning is weaken, the statements offered in support of the conclusion, though relevant to it , by themselves provide at best inadequate grounds for the conclusion.  
19. the reasoning is flawed in that the conclusion no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of evidence offered in its support.  
20. the reasoning is flawed in that the argument treats evidence that a factor is necessary to bring about an events as if it were evidence that the factor is sufficient to bring about that event.  
21. it proceeds as if a condition, which by itself is enough to guarantee a certain result , is the only condition under which that result would occur  
22. it bases a conclusion that is known to require two conditions on evidence that bears on only one of those conditions  
23. it explains one vent as being caused by another event, even though both events must actually have been caused by some third, unidentified event  
24. it treats evidence for the absence of one condition under which a circumstance would occur as conclusive evidence that that circumstance will not occur  
25. evidence given to support the conclusion actually undermines it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRE作文常用模板  



每篇必用的经典词
必然类：necessarily ensure warrant guarantee causal
明显类：conspicuously obviously clearly apparently
怀疑类：doubly unconvincing unacceptable unwarranted unfounded
可能类：possible probably likely；There is a good chance that...；It is more likely that...；It is equally possible that...；
因果类：result in result from therefore as a result
转折类：even though however otherwise
其他类：As we all know....；A great deal of empirical evidence shows that....；It doesn’t follow that...；The fact tells very little about ....；Another assumption short of legitimacy is that....



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
模板之8大逻辑错误

1.A groundless survey/study
The validity of the survey is open to doubt.
The survey lacks representatives...
There is no specific information about the survey...
Without knowing how the survey was done, how it represents the public option
Who conducted the survey? who responded? how the pool was conducted?
The opinion lacks representatives of overall attitudes based on which we can make any general judgment about the conclusion....
In absence of specific information about the survey, it’s impossible for us to evaluate the argument.

2. Oversiplification
The arguer commits a fallacy of oversimplification.
There are several major factors contribute to the XXX other than YYY, such as/for instance ZZZ, all of which are ignored by the arguer.
As we know, XXX depends on many factors, such as ZZZ, which are unknown from the argument.
The arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between XXX and YYY.
For example, YYY may also help explain XXX.
Factors such as AA and BB both have some bearing on XXX.
Actually, the recommendation that YYYY as the only way to XXX most likely turn out to be ineffective and somewhat misleading.


3.A false analogy
The argument is based on a false analogy.
Even though there are some points of comparison between XX and YY, there are dissimilarity as well.
But the problem is that the two situation are not similar enough to justify the analogical deduction.
As we know, the struction, system, operation are conspicuously different.
It’s a incomplete and selective comparison.
Even though XX is proved effective in YYY, there is no guarantee that it will just work as well in ZZZ.

4.A gratuitous assumption
The argument is based on a gratuitous assumption that ####,which is, of course unwarranted.
The arguer fails to convince us that....

5.A false dilemma
The arguer unfairly assumes that we must make an either/or choice between XX and YY.
XX and YY are not necessarily mutually-exclusive alternatives.
Adjusting XX and YY together might produce a better result.

6.A hasty generalization
We are informed that XXX, but we do not know whether all of ### prefer ###.
We can believe that XXX is indeed ###,but based on this slim information we can never evaluate the overall performance of YYY.

7.A fallacy of "after this ,therefore because of this"
The arguer unfairly assumes that XXX caused YYY, since many other reasons may explain that###.
Unless other possibilities have be considered and ruled out, the conclusion is unconvincing.

8.All things are equal.
The arguer commits a fallacy of "all things are equal".
The arguer assumes without justification that the background conditions have remained the same at different time and different places.


文章结构
In this argument, the arguer recommends that ####,to support this conclusion the arguer cites the

result of a resent survey that ####,moreover the arguer points out that ####. As it stands ,the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows.

First of all, the arguer commits a fallacy of ###.

In addition, the validity of the survey is open to doubt.#####

Finally, the argument is based on a gratuitous assumption that ####.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should provide more information concerning ####, to better evaluate the argument ,we need more concert evidence that ####, otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable.

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-11 21:18 编辑 ]

lin_nemoUID: 2112876

还有吗？

zhangheng1020UID: 2130513

Argument 嘉文博译范文 29篇   

来源：嘉文博译

1.
Topic

The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine
"The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California confirm my conclusion. In 1915 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 1992 there were only four species of amphibians observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. The decline in Yosemite has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1920 (trout are known to eat amphibian eggs). But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline."
Sample Essay
In this argument, the writer of the letter concludes that global pollution of water and air has caused a decline in the number of amphibians worldwide. To support his or her conclusion, the writer cites the results of two studies, seventy-five years apart, that purportedly show that the number of amphibians in one park in California, Yosemite National Park, have drastically declined. Additionally, the writer casts aside a given reason for the decline , stating that the introduction of trout to the park (who are known to eat amphibian eggs) does not explain the worldwide decline in the number of amphibians. This argument defies simple logic and suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the argument is based on only two studies in one specific part of the world, Yosemite National Park in California. It is impossible to pinpoint a worldwide theory for the decline of amphibians based on any number of studies in only one specific location in the world - the specific varieties of amphibians, geographical conditions and other location specific variables prohibit such a sweeping generalization. One very specific location cannot be used as a model for all other locations, even within one particular country, let alone the entire world. The writer provides no evidenced whatsoever that links the Yosemite study with any purported effects anywhere else in the global environment.

Secondly, the two separate studies were done seventy-five years apart;). There is no evidence that the two studies were conducted in a similar manner over the same duration of time or even over the same exact areas of Yosemite National Park, or that the exact same study methods were used.;) For example, perhaps the first study lasted over an entire year and was conducted by twenty-five experts in amphibious biology, resulting in the finding of seven species of amphibians in abundant numbers. By contrast, perhaps the second study was conducted over a period of one week by a lone high school student as a school science project. The writer offers no basis on which to compare the two studies, leaving it open as to whether the two are truly comparable in their breadth, scope and expertise.

Finally, the writer notes that the decline in the amphibian population has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters in 1920, but then dismisses that argument on the purely specious basis that it does not explain the worldwide decline. This part of the argument blithely dismisses the very relevant fact that trout are known to eat amphibian eggs. This attempt to "prove a negative" is the last resort of those in search of some vain attempt to prove the truth of the matter that they are asserting. It is basically impossible to "prove a negative"; this is an attempt to shift the burden of proof back on to the nonbelievers of the argument. The global environmental situation and that of Yosemite National Park are not perfectly correlated, and the fact that the trout may very well be responsible for the decline cannot simply be dismissed without further proof.

In summary, the writer fails to establish any causal relationship between global air and water pollution and the decline of amphibious life worldwide. The evidence presented is extremely weak at best and narrowly focuses on one tiny area of the globe, as well as putting forward as proof two studies about which almost nothing is known. For a stronger argument, the writer would need to directly put forth evidence associating air and water pollution with not only the decline at Yosemite but also throughout other areas of the world.

(599 words)
参考译文
[题目]
下述文字摘自一封致某环保杂志编辑的信函：
"全球两栖动物数量的减少明显标志着全球性水与大气的污染。对加利福尼亚州约塞米蒂国家公园内两栖动物所作的两项研究可证实我的这一结论。1915年公园内有七个物种的两栖动物，每一物种都拥有丰富的种群数量。然而，1992年，在公园内所能观察到的两栖动物物种仅为四类，且每一物种的种群数量已骤然下降。约塞米蒂公园动物数量减少被归咎于始于1920年的将鲑鱼引入公园水域的做法(众所周知，鲑鱼喜食两栖动物所产的卵)。但鲑鱼的引入不可能成为约塞米蒂公园动物数量减少的真正原因，因为它无法来解释全球范围内的动物数量减少。"

[范文正文]
在本项论述中，信函作者的结论是，全球性水与大气污染已致使世界范围内两栖动物的数量减少。为了支持其论点，作者援引了两份时隔75年之久的研究结果，这两份结果据称可证明加利福尼亚州某一公园――即约塞米蒂国家公园――内两栖动物的数量锐减。此外，该作者撇开了动物数量减少的一个已知原因，陈述道，将鲑鱼引入公园(据称，鲑鱼喜食两栖动物所产的卵)这一做法不足以解释世界范围内两栖动物数量上的减少。这一论点有悖于简单的逻辑，犯有一系列关键性的逻辑谬误。

首先，该论点所依据的仅仅是世界上某一特定地点――即加利福尼亚州约塞米蒂国家公园――内的两份研究。围绕着两栖动物数量减少这一问题，如果仅以世界上一个特定的地点为样品，再多数量的研究也无法得出一种精确的、适用于全世界的理论。两栖动物的具体种类、地理状况以及其他因地点而特异的变数均不允许我们作出如此一概而论的总括。一个非常具体的地点不能用作一个代表所有其他地点的模型，即使在一个特定的国家内也不行，更不用说在整个世界范围内了。信函作者没有提供任何证据将约塞米蒂公园的研究与全球环境中任何其他一处地方的任何所宣称的效果联系起来。 其次，所提及的那两项互为独立的研究时隔75年之久。没有证据可证明这两项研究是在相同的时间跨度内以相似的方式进行的，或是在约塞米蒂公园完全相同的地点进行的，或所使用的研究方法绝然相同。例如，第一项研究可能持续了整整一年之久，且是由两栖动物生物学领域的二十五位专家共同进行的。结果是发现了七大种类数目众多的两栖动物。相反，第二项研究可能是一位高中生孤身一人所做的学校的一个科学课题，仅为期一个星期。信函作者没有提供将此两项研究进行比较的基础，从而使两项研究在其广度、范围以及专业水准方面的可比性不得而知。 最后，信函作者指出，两栖动物种群数量的减少，已被人归咎于1920年将鲑鱼引入公园水域这一做法，但紧接着又以该论据无法解释世界范围内动物数量减少这一似是而非的依据将该论据予以否认。信函作者论述中的这一部分漫不经心地将一个极为相关的事实弃置不顾，即众所周知，鲑鱼喜食两栖动物所产的卵。这种"prove a negative "的尝试往往是这样一类人所惯用的最后伎俩，他们竭力寻找某种徒劳的尝试，力图去证明他们所宣称的事物的真理。从根本上讲，"prove a negative"是不可能的。这样一种做法是试图将论证的负担重新转嫁给不相信该论据的人。全球的环境情形与约塞米蒂公园的情形并不绝然对应。鲑鱼极有可能造成了两栖动物数量减少这一事实在缺乏进一步证据的情况下是断不能轻易予以否认的。

概括而言，信函作者没能在全球空气和水污染与世界范围内两栖生命数量减少之间建立起任何因果关系。该作者所拿出的证据充其量也是极为苍白无力的，狭隘地将焦点集中在世界的一片极小的区域上，作为证据而援引的两项研究几乎不能说明任何问题。欲使其论点更具力度，信函作者尚需摆出直接的证据，将水和空气污染不仅仅与约塞米蒂公园的两栖动物数量减少联系起来，而且也与世界其他地方的动物数量减少联系起来。

zhangheng1020UID: 2130513

2.
Topic

The following is a letter to the editor of the Atticus City newspaper
"Former Mayor Durant owes an apology to the city of Atticus. Both the damage to the River Bridge, which connects Atticus to Hartley, and the traffic problems we have long experienced on the bridge were actually caused 20 years ago by Durant. After all, he is the one who approved the construction of the bridge. If he had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, on which approximately the same amount of public money would have been spent, none of the damage or problems would have occurred. Instead, the River Bridge has deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years than has the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. Even though the winters have been severe in the past several years, this is no excuse for the negligence and wastefulness of Durant."

Sample Essay
The author of this letter concludes in his or her argument that former Mayor Durant should apologize to the city of Atticus because he is at fault for damage that has occurred over a twenty-year time span to the River Bridge. The author also blames Mayor Durant for long-time traffic problems on the bridge, stating that Durant actually caused these problems twenty years before because he approved the construction of the bridge and did not approve a wider and better-designed bridge. The arguer may have a personal vendetta against Mayor Durant but the elements stated in the argument do not support such an accusation.

First of all, the author squarely places blame on Mayor Durant for the simple act of approving the construction of the bridge. There is no evidence presented that merely approving the building of the bridge had anything whatsoever to do with the damage that has occurred or the traffic problems on the bridge. It is entirely possible that Mr. Durant simply approved the idea of constructing the bridge and not the design of the bridge or the contractor that built it. Simply approving the construction of the bridge does not in and of itself cause damage to that bridge or any resulting traffic problems.



In addition, the arguer concludes that if Mayor Durant had approved a wider and better-designed bridge that there would be no damage or traffic problems, an argument for which there is no basis of proof offered. It is a well-known fact that bridges are subject to deterioration, particularly over a period of twenty years, no matter how well designed they may be. The author also fails to offer any supporting evidence to show that a more durable bridge with fewer traffic problems could have been built for approximately the same amount of public money. It seems likely that a wider bridge would have more damage problems rather than fewer, and probably would have cost more as well, whether public or private funds were used.

Furthermore, the arguer mentions that the River Bridge has deteriorated much more rapidly than the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. This groundless argument fails to take into account other possible reasons for the discrepancy in the deterioration of the two bridges such as traffic loads, location and other environmental variables. It is possible that the Derby Bridge was much more protected from the elements and rarely used by heavy truck traffic, for example. The author gives no basis for a direct comparison between the two bridges other than his or her personal opinion.

Finally, the letter writer refers to the "negligence and wastefulness" of Mayor Durant. The only action cited by the author is the approval of the bridge in the first place, which proves neither neglect nor wasting of anything. The sentence itself contains a non sequitur - firstly discussing the severe winters of the past several years, and then accusing Mr. Durant of waste and neglect. This accusation is unwarranted as well as unsupported in the author's argument.



In summary, the author simply makes groundless accusations without providing any real support for his or her argument. To make the argument convincing, the author would have to provide evidence that Mayor Durant approved a faulty bridge design or an unqualified construction company that caused the bridge's damage and traffic problems. The author should have also provided supporting details that show that the damage to the bridge is out of the ordinary and directly caused by Mayor Durant's decision to use inadequate construction materials or a poor design. Without more support, the author's point of view is unconvincing and not well reasoned.

(605 words)

参考译文
[题目]
下述文字乃一封致《Atticus都市报》的信函：

"前市长Durant应向全体Atticus 市民道歉。无论是将Atticus 市和Hartley市连结起来的跨河大桥所遭到的毁坏，还是我们在大桥上长期以来所经历的交通问题，实际上都是由Durant 市长在20年之前一手铸成的。无论如何，是他批准了大桥的开工建设。如果他所批准建设的大桥更宽一些，设计得更精良一些，而所投入其上的公共款项大致相等的话，那么，无论是大桥的受损，还是交通拥堵问题均不会发生。然则，在过去20年期间，跨河大桥现在则远比上游河段上长度远长得多的Derby河大桥更为快速地遭到毁损。尽管过去几年中冬天的日子甚为严酷，但我们绝不能原谅Durant 市长的玩忽职守和浪费。"

[范文正文]

本信函的作者在其论述中得出结论，认为前市长Durant 应向Atticus全市作出正式道歉，因为对于过去20年中跨河大桥所遭受的损坏他应引咎自责。作者亦责怪Durant市长造成了大桥上长期以来的交通问题。作者陈述道，由于Durant市长批准了现在这座大桥的开工建设，而没有批准一座更宽、设计更精良的大桥，故他在20年之前实际上就已铸成了上述这些问题。提出这些论点的作者可以对Durant市长有此个人怨仇，但论述中所陈述的各项内容并不能为这样一种责怪提供依据。


首先，作者斩钉截铁地将罪责归咎于Durant市长，仅仅因为他批准了大桥的建造这一行为本身。但作者没能提供证据证明，仅仅只是批准该座大桥的建造这一行为与大桥本身所遭受的毁坏或大桥上的交通问题有任何必然的联系。完全有可能的是，Durant先生仅仅只是准许了建造这座大桥的想法，而并没有认可该大桥的设计或建造该大桥的承包商。纯粹去批准大桥的建造，这一行为就其本身而言并不会导致大桥受毁或造成任何交通问题。

此外，论述者得出结论，认为如果Durant市长批准建造一座更宽、设计更精良的大桥的话，则既不会发生大桥受损，也不会有交通拥堵的问题。对于该论据，论述者也没有提出任何证明依据。一个众所周知的事实是，所有桥梁的状况都会每况愈下，尤其是经历了20年这样长的时间之后，无论它们当时设计得是如何精良。信函作者也没能提供任何能起到支持作用的证据来证明，人们可以用大致同等数量的公共款项建起一座更为持久的、交通问题更少的大桥。有可能的是，一座桥面更宽的大桥所遭受的损坏可能更多，而非更少。也有可能是，所投入的资金将更大，无论所使用的是公共款项还是私人资金。

再者，论述者提到跨河大桥比上游河段更长的Derby大桥老化的速度来得快。这一毫无根据的论点没能考虑到导致两座大桥老化状况差异的其他有可能的因素，如交通负荷、桥址、以及其他环境方面的变数。例如，Derby大桥受到了更好的保护，受自然因素影响较少，很少有重型卡车类的交通工具通过其上。除了其武断的个人看法以外，信函作者没有拿出任何依据来在两座大桥之间作出直接的比较。

最后，信函作者提及Durant市长的"玩忽职守及浪费"。该作者所援引的有关Durant市长的唯一的所作所为仅是早先时候对大桥建造的批准，而这一点既不能证明任何的玩忽职守，也不能证明任何浪费。该句子本身包含了一个不根据前提的推理--首先讨论过去几年中气候严酷的冬天，紧接着责怪Durant先生的浪费与疏忽。在作者的论述中，这一谴责既无正当理由，也缺乏依据。

概而言之，信函作者所做的只是提出一些毫无根据的责怪，而没有拿出任何真正的依据来证明其论点。要使其论点更具说服力，该作者应拿出证据来证明，Durant市长所批准的是一份有严重失误的大桥建设设计方案，或一个没有资质的建筑公司，从而导致了大桥的受毁和交通问题。该作者也应该提供有支持作用的细节，以表明大桥受损程度超乎寻常，并且是因为Durant市长决定使用劣质建筑材料或采用了一份蹩脚的设计方案而直接造成的。在没有更为充分的依据这一条件下，该作者的论点无法令人置信，并且也显得没有得到充分的论证。

zhangheng1020UID: 2130513

3.
The following is from an editorial in the Midvale Observer, a local newspaper.

"Ever since the 1950's, when television sets began to appear in the average home, the rate of crimes committed by teenagers in the country of Alta has steadily increased. This increase in teenage crime parallels the increase in violence shown on television. According to several national studies, even very young children who watch a great number of television shows featuring violent scenes display more violent behavior within their home environment than do children who do not watch violent shows. Furthermore, in a survey conducted by the Observer, over 90 percent of the respondents were parents who indicated that prime-time television--programs that are shown between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m.---should show less violence. Therefore, in order to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta, television viewers should demand that television programmers reduce the amount of violence shown during prime time."

The author of this editorial states that the rate of teenage crime in the country of Alta has increased along with the increase in violence shown on television, beginning with the 1950's when television was introduced in the average home. In addition, the author states that several national surveys have shown that young children watching violent television programs are more prone to violence than children who do not. The write also says that a survey indicated that ninety percent of parents responding said that prime-time programs should show less violence. Finally, the author comes to the conclusion that to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta, television watchers should demand a reduction in violence shown during prime time. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

Firstly, the writer equates the rate of increase in teenage crime in Alta to the increase in violence shown on television but gives no causal linkage other than the similar time periods. The author makes no distinction between types of crimes - whether they are violent or nonviolent crimes by teenagers. Furthermore, there are several possible alternative causes for the increase in teen crimes. For example, perhaps all types of crimes have increased for all ages, or maybe the police are now doing a better job of catching teenage criminals than they were before. Perhaps the reason for the increase is simply an increase in the overall population and that as a percentage of the population, teen crime is even less than it was before. Without ruling out these and other causes, the argument fails to convince by showing no causal linkage between television violence and teenage crime.

Secondly, the author mentions national studies that show that young children that watch violent programs show more violent behavior at home than children who do not watch such programs. This argument fails on two levels - one by assuming that children and teenagers are equally affected by television programs; and two by again assuming that there is some type of cause and effect relationship between television violence and teenage crime. Young children and teenagers are not the same and it should not be assumed that more violent behavior within the home leads to crimes outside as these children grow into teenagers.

Thirdly, the author offers a survey showing that ninety percent of the respondents were parents who indicated that prime time television programs should show less violence. The survey methods are not discussed - it is possible that the sample was improperly chosen or somehow predisposed to include parents that are very much opposed to television violence. Additionally, it is possible that such parents are far more vocal in their opinions than those who care little or not at all about prime time television violence, again skewing the results of the survey. Even assuming the veracity of the sample population surveyed, it is not logical to associate television violence with teen crime solely on that basis.

Finally, the author makes the gratuitous assumption that simply having television viewers demand that television programmers reduce the amount of violence during prime time will lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta. Regardless of the flawed arguments previously discussed, simply demanding a change will have no effect whatsoever on teen crime. To strengthen his or her argument, the author needs to show some direct causal linkage between television violence and teen crime rather than making vague and unsupported comparisons purporting to show a link. There is no proof given either that television violence of any kind causes teenage crime or that a reduction in prime time violence will keep teenagers from breaking the law.

(602 words)
参考译文
［题目］

下述文字摘自一份地方性报纸《Midvale观察家》所发表的社论。

"自二十世纪五十年代以来，当电视机开始出现于寻常百姓家庭时，Alta国内青少年犯罪率已呈现出持续上升的势头。这一青少年犯罪行为的上升与电视上所播放的暴力画面的增加成正比。按照几份全国性调查报告，在那些大量观看了涉及到暴力场面的电视节目的青少年中，即使是极为年幼的孩童在其家庭环境中也要比那些不看暴力节目的孩童表现出更多的暴力行为。此外，在一项由《Midvale观察家》所进行的调查中，有90%的受访者为父母亲，他(她)们表示黄金时段的电视内容--即晚上7点到9点所播放的节目--应该减少播放暴力内容。据此，为了降低Alta国内青少年犯罪率，电视观众应该要求电视节目编播者减少黄金时段所播放的暴力画面数量。"

[范文正文]
本社论作者陈述道，Alta国内青少年犯罪率伴随着电视所播放的暴力场面的增加而上升。这一情形始于二十世纪五十年代，因为电视在当时被引入到普通百姓的家庭。此外，该作者陈述道，几项全国性调查显示，观看暴力电视节目的孩子比那些不看同类节目的孩子更易于形成暴力倾向。社论作者还指出，一份调查表明，受访的90%的父母亲认为，黄金时段的电视节目不应含有那么多的暴力场面。最后，作者得出结论，认为要想降低Alta国内的青少年犯罪率，电视观众应要求减少黄金时段所播放的暴力画面。这一论述犯有若干关键性的逻辑谬误。

首先，社论作者将Alta国内青少年犯罪率的上升与电视所播放的暴力场面的增加相提并论，但除了二者在时间上吻合以外，没能给出任何因果关系。该作者没有对不同的犯罪种类作出区分--青少年所犯的罪行是属于暴力型的还是非暴力型的。此外，对于青少年犯罪数量的增加，还存在着其他一些有可能的原因。例如，或许所有年龄段的所有类型的犯罪行为都呈上升态势，或者也有可能，***现在要比过去更擅长于抓捕青少年犯罪者了。更有可能的是，犯罪上升的原因仅仅只是人口总量的上升所致，并且，作为人口总量中的一个比例，青少年犯罪现在甚至低于以前的程度。如不排除掉这些以及其他的原因，社论中的论点便无法令人信服，因为作者没有在电视暴力和青少年犯罪之间建立起任何因果关系。

其次，社论作者提到，有几份全国性研究表明，观看暴力节目的孩童在家里比不看此类节目的孩童表现出了更多的暴力行为。这一论点在二个层面上显得站不住脚--首先是假设孩童和青少年受到电视节目同等程度的影响；第二是又一次假定在电视暴力与青少年犯罪之间存在着某种因果关系。孩童与青少年毕竟并不相同，我们不能做这样的假定，即家庭中较为暴力的那些行为必然会随着这些孩子长大成为青少年而发展成为犯罪行为。

第三，社论作者给出一项调查，以期证明90%的回答问卷的受访者均为父母亲一类的人，他(她)们提出黄金时段的电视节目不应该播放如此多的暴力镜头。但社论中没有讨论该调查所使用的调查方法是什么。情况有可能是，该调查的样本选择得并不恰当，或在某种程度上侧重于只将那些对电视暴力甚感厌恶的父母亲囊括于样本之中。再则，情况也可能是，这些父母亲在表达其意见时要比那些对黄金时段电视暴力漠不关心或满不在乎的人来得语气强烈得多，这样便再度使调查结果失之偏颇。即使我们假定所调查的人口样本是真实的，仅仅以此为依据将电视暴力和青少年犯罪联系起来也是不合逻辑的。 最后，社论作者作出一不必要的假设，即只要有电视观众要求电视节目编播者减少黄金时段暴力内容的播放量便可降低Alta国内的青少年犯罪率。即使不考虑此前已讨论过的那些含有缺陷的论点，只是去要求作出某种改变并不会对青少年犯罪产生任何影响。若要增强其论点的逻辑性，社论作者必须在电视暴力与青少年犯罪之间表明某种直接的因果关系，而不是作出某些含糊其辞的和缺乏依据的比较，声称存在着某种联系。该作者既没有拿出证据证明任何种类的电视暴力导致了青少年的犯罪，也没能证明黄金时段电视暴力的减少将会防范青少年的违法乱纪行为。

zhangheng1020UID: 2130513

4.
The following appeared in the editorial section of a health and fitness magazine

"In a study of the effects of exercise on longevity, medical researchers tracked 500 middle-aged men over a 20-year period. The subjects represented a variety of occupations in several different parts of the country and responded to an annual survey in which they were asked: How often and how strenuously do you exercise? Of those who responded, the men who reported that they engaged in vigorous outdoor exercise nearly every day lived longer than the men who reported that they exercised mildly only once or twice a week. Given the clear link that this study establishes between longevity and exercise, doctors should not recommend moderate exercise to their patients but should instead encourage vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis."  

It is natural to assume that exercise would have a positive effect on the length of life for middle-aged men given all of the medical literature that has been published in the past showing a positive correlation between exercise and longevity. In this particular argument, the writer puts forth a study purporting to track five hundred middle-aged men with different occupations in different parts of the country. The survey was apparently conducted on the basis of an annual survey asking how often and how strenuously these men exercised. The writer not only concludes that there is a clear link between longevity and exercise, but that doctors should not recommend moderate exercise, rather vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis to all their patients. This writer's argument fails to convince in a number of areas due to several lapses in logical thinking.

The first and most glaring error in logic lies in the fact that the results of only two types of exercising men are reported: those that exercise strenuously outdoors almost every day and those that only had mild exercise once or twice per week. There are no other results mentioned from the survey, such as the results of men who exercise vigorously indoors every day, or those that exercise moderately either indoors or outdoors three or four times per week. Additionally, it is likely that those men that are exercising outdoors vigorously and almost every day are already in better health than those men that only exercise mildly once or twice per week. Unhealthy men, either due to obesity, smoking or other health-related problems, would naturally be expected to exercise less and die sooner than those apparently healthy men who are physically able to exercise strenuously every day.

Furthermore, the writer indicates that the survey looked at men in different parts of the country with a variety of occupations. It would follow that men that can exercise vigorously outdoors almost every day must live in more favorable climates for such exercise. Milder weather that permits outdoor exercise would likely be healthier for any men rather than the harsher climates that may be present in other parts of the country. In addition, some occupations such as a policeman, firefighter or steelworker are naturally more dangerous than others, leading to a possibly reduced life span. The writer fails to take into account any possible disparity in longevity that may be caused by climatic differences where the men lived or due to their occupations, thus weakening the argument and its conclusion.

Finally, the argument suffers from a critical flaw in its conclusion when the writer states that doctors should not recommend moderate exercise for their patients, instead stating that they should only encourage vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis. This conclusion is supported by absolutely no evidence in the argument - indeed moderate exercise is not even mentioned until the end of the editorial. Additionally, the argument fails to take into account that the study only addresses men, not women or children that are also doctors' patients. Furthermore, for some men, women or children, outdoor vigorous exercise on a daily basis might actually be detrimental to their health, such as those at risk for a heart attack or living in harsh climates.

In summary, the writer fails to show that doctors should recommend vigorous daily outdoor exercise rather than moderate exercise whether it is for men, women or children. To strengthen the argument, evidence should be presented that directly links strenuous outdoor exercise on a daily basis for men as well as all doctors' patients before any such recommendation should be adopted. This weak argument might actually cause more damage to patients' health than it would prevent.

(615 words)
参考译文
[题目]

下述文字刊登于某健康与健美杂志的社论栏：
"在一项有关运动对长寿的影响的研究中，医疗研究人员在为期20年的时间中跟踪调查了500名中年男性。被调查对象代表着该国若干个不同地区的形形色色的职业，他们对每年度调查中的二个问题--你运动的频繁程度如何？运动的力度如何？--作出回答。在所有作出回答的人中间，那些汇报说几乎每天都从事剧烈户外运动的男性，其寿命要高于那些汇报说每周只从事一次或二次轻微运动的男性。鉴于本项研究在长寿与运动之间所确立的明显关系，大夫们不应向其病人建议适度的运动，而应该鼓励病人每天从事剧烈的户外活动。"

[范文正文]
鉴于过去所出版的医学文献均表明，在运动和长寿之间存在着一种积极的关系，人们自然会认为运动会对中年男性的寿命产生一种极积的影响。在这段特定的论述中，作者引用一份研究，声称该研究对500名本国不同地区从事不同职业的男性进行了跟踪调查。这份研究显然每年进行一次问卷调查，询问这些男性从事运动的频繁程度以及力度如何。该作者不仅得出结论，认为长寿和运动之间存在着明显的联系，而且也认为大夫不应该向病人推荐适度的运动，而应该鼓励所有的病人每天都应进行剧烈的户外运动。鉴于其逻辑思维中的若干差错，该作者的论述在诸多方面无法令人信服。 逻辑推理中第一个也是最彰著的谬误在于这样一个事实，即研究仅报告了从事运动的二类男性的结果，第一类为几乎每天都要去户外做剧烈运动的男性，第二类为一星期只进行一至二次适度运动的男性。该调查中的其他结果均未提及，诸如每天在室内进行剧烈运动的男性的结果，或者那些每周三至四次在室内或在室外进行运动的男性的结果。此外，那些在室外作剧烈运动且几乎每天都进行运动的男性，可能比那些仅每周作一至二次适度运动的人早就处在更佳的身体状况之中。身体不够健康的男性，或因为肥胖，或因为抽烟，或因为其他与健康相关的问题，自然不被期望去作那么多的运动，否则，与那些显然是身体健康的、拥有每天进行剧烈运动体能的男性相比，他们可能会死得更早。 另一方面，该作者表示，此项调查所研究的男性分布在该国不同的地区，从事着不尽相同的职业。我们自然会得出这样的结论，即那些能够在户外几乎每天都从事剧烈运动的男性，他们必定生活在较适宜于这类运动的气候之中。允许户外运动的较为温和的气候无疑要比存在于该国其他地区较为恶劣的气候对任何人的身体更为有利。除此之外，诸如***、消防员以及钢铁工人这些职业，自然要比其他类别的职业更加危险，从而导致一个人的寿命可能缩短。该作者没能考虑到任何有可能由人们所在地区的气候差异或其职业差异所致的寿命长短方面的差别，从而削弱了其论据及其结论。 最后，当作者作出这样的陈述，即大夫不应该向其病人建议适度的运动，而只应该鼓励每日进行户外剧烈的运动时，其论述的结论中便产生了一个关键性的缺陷。所得出的结论在论述中绝对找不到任何可资佐证的依据--甚至，只是直到社论结束之处才提及适度的运动。此外，此项论述没能注意到所作的研究仅涉及男性，而非涉及同样也作为大夫病人的女性和儿童。再者，对于某些男性、女性、及儿童而言，每天的户外剧烈运动实际上反而会危害他们的健康，尤其是对于那些有心脏病危险或生活在恶劣气候中的人们来说。

归纳而言，本社论作者没能证明大夫们为什么就应该推荐剧烈的每日户外运动，而不是适度的运动，无论病人是男性、女性、还是孩子。若需要强化其论点，作者应摆出证据，将男性每日剧烈的户外运动和所有大夫的病人的运动直接联系起来，然后才采纳任何这样的建议。这一薄弱的论据实际上有可能引起的对病人健康的伤害，会远超过它所可能防范的伤害。

lin_nemoUID: 2112876

？？？？？？？？？？？？？

zhangheng1020UID: 2130513

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

"Too much emphasis is placed on the development of reading skills in elementary school. Many students who are discouraged by the lonely activity of reading turn away from schoolwork merely because they are poor readers. But books recorded on audiocassette tape provide an important alternative for students at this crucial stage in their education, one the school board should not reject merely because of the expense involved. After all, many studies attest to the value of allowing students to hear books read aloud; there is even evidence that students whose parents read to them are even more likely to become able readers. Thus, hearing books on tape can only make students more eager to read and to learn. Therefore, the school board should encourage schools to buy books on tape and to use them in elementary education."

In this argument, the writer claims that elementary schools place too much emphasis on the development of reading skills; therefore books on audiocassette should be provided as an alternative method of learning. The arguer attempts to substantiate the conclusion by citing studies that show the value of allowing students to hear books read aloud; including evidence that students whose parents read to them are even more likely to become better readers. This argument ultimately fails as it suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the writer flatly states, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, that many students are discouraged by the "lonely" activity of reading, then continues on in the same sentence to state that students turn away from schoolwork solely because they are poor readers. Students often read to themselves or to the other students in a classroom situation - hardly a lonely activity. Additionally, this argument puts the effect before the cause - inviting the circular logic that students stop trying to learn to read because they are poor readers. Following this argument to its logical conclusion, because they are poor readers, they should not try to learn how to improve their reading. This absurd argument is analogous to saying that a new student should never start to learn in the first place, because he or she knows nothing.

Secondly, the writer cites as evidence in favor of the use of audiocassettes the idea that students whose parents read to them are even more likely to become proficient readers. It is at best doubtful that this provides proof that listening to someone read a book stimulates a young mind to learn to read better. It is far more likely that the child gains an interest in learning to read from the parents themselves, not the physical act of having something read to them. In this situation, the parent is showing the child his or her ability to read, which the child will naturally want to emulate. Furthermore, it is likely that a parent that spends time reading to a child is likely to be a much more encouraging parent, particularly when it comes to that child's education.

Thirdly, the writer fails to convince in his argument that hearing books on audiocassette makes a child more eager to read and to learn. The author cites many studies that show value in allowing students to hear books read aloud - he or she does not state that the studies show whether that value manifests itself as better reading skills or simply better listening skills, which seems more likely than any improvement in reading ability.

Finally, the author fails to take into consideration that merely listening to books on audiocassette fails to provide the visual stimulation necessary to develop higher level reading skills. It is more likely that hearing a book on audiocassette would discourage that student from ever reading that particular book on his or her own. Elementary schools are the main developing grounds for a student's reading abilities- there is no substitute for actively learning to actually see the writing and comprehend what it is trying to say. Listening skills can be developed through means other than by hearing books on audiocassette. Reading skills are an absolutely irreplaceable and fundamental part of an elementary student's education.

In conclusion, the writer's argument fails to address several weak areas that lead to a rejection of the overall conclusion that the school board should encourage schools to buy books on tape for use in elementary education. To strengthen the argument, direct cause and effect evidence should be set forth that shows better overall learning without any loss in the development of higher level reading skills for students.

(612 words)

参考译文
[题目]

下述文字摘自一封致某地方报纸编辑的信函：

"在小学里，人们对阅读技能的培养强调得过分了。许多对孤独的阅读活动望而却步的学生无心专注于学业，仅仅是因为他们阅读能力薄弱。但是，录制在盒式录音磁带上的书本内容却可以向学生在其教育中如此关键的这一阶段提供另外一个重要的选择方案。对于这一方案，校董事会不能纯粹因为所涉及到的费用而予以摈弃。不管怎么说，许多研究均可验证让学生聆听大声朗诵书本内容这一做法的价值。甚至还不乏这样的证据，即有些学生，由于其父母将书本内容朗读给他们听，就更有可能成为阅读能力很强的人。因此，在盒式录音磁带上听书本内容只会使学生更迫切地去阅读和学习。故校董事会应该鼓励学校去购置磁带书本，并将其应用于小学教学之中。"

[范文正文]
在本段论述中，作者宣称小学过分强调对学生阅读能力的培养；因此，录制在盒式录音磁带上的书本内容应提供给学生，作为又一种可选择的学习方法。论述者通过援引某些研究，力图来证明自己的结论，所援引的研究表明，让学生聆听书本内容被大声朗读这一做法不无价值。论述者还提供了这样的证据，即有些学生，由于其父母亲将书本内容朗读给他们听，就较有可能成为阅读能力很强的人。该论点由于存在着某些严重的逻辑谬误而最终无法站得住脚。 首先，作者言之凿凿地、且在毫无任何佐证性证据的情况下陈述道，许多学生对"孤独的"阅读行为望而却步，接着在同一个句子中继续陈述道，学生会仅仅因为阅读能力差而无心投入到学业之中。学生常常会在课堂氛围中自己默读或者朗读给其他学生听，这就很难将阅读说成是一种"孤独的"活动。此外，该论点将因果倒置--诉诸于循环论证式逻辑推理 --学生们因为阅读技能差而不愿努力去学习阅读。按此论据得出的逻辑结论便是：因为他们阅读能力差，他们就不必作任何努力去学习如何来提高其阅读能力。这一荒谬的论述仿佛就像是在说，一个新生永远没有必要开始学习任何东西，因为这位新生一无所知。

其次，作者援引了某一理念作为证据，用来为盒式录音磁带的使用进行辩护，这一理念便是，当一个学生有父母对他进行朗读时，他便更有可能成为一个精于阅读的人。如果将这视为证据，说明听他人朗读一本书便能刺激一颗年幼的心灵去学习如何具有更强的阅读能力，这充其量也是十分令人怀疑的。更有可能的是，孩子从父母身上所获得的是一种去学习阅读的兴趣，而非由他人对他们进行朗读这一具体行为本身。在此情形中，父母所做的是向孩子表明他或她的阅读能力，孩子自然愿意模仿这一能力。再者，一位花时间来给孩子进行朗读的父亲或母亲更有可能是一个教子有方的人，尤其是在涉及到孩子教育这一方面。

第三，作者在其论述中没能让我们相信在盒式录音磁带上听书能使孩子更加渴望去阅读和学习。作者援引了多项研究，以期证明让学生听人大声朗读书本这一做法的价值。但这位作者并没能说清楚，这些研究所表明的价值是否呈现为更强的阅读技能，或者只是呈现为更强的听力技能，而这一技能似乎比任何阅读能力方面的提高来得更有可能。

最后需要指出的是，作者没有考虑到这样一个因素，即纯粹在盒式录音带上听书是无法提供培养较高层次阅读技能所必需的视觉刺激的。情况更有可能是，在盒式录音带上听某一本书会打消该学生自己去阅读那本特定的书的积极性。小学教育是发展孩子阅读能力的主要阶段，没有任何东西可以来替代积极的学习行为，亲眼去看所写的内容并去理解字里行间所要表达的内容。要发展听力技能，并不必定需要借助在盒式录音带上听书这一手段。阅读技能是小学生教育中绝对无可替代的和最基本的部分。

归纳而言，作者的论述没有能解决某些薄弱之处，正是这些没能纠正的薄弱之处，使学校董事会应该鼓励学校去购买磁带书本用于小学教育这一总体结论无法得以成立。若要使其论据更具充分说服力，必须摆出直接的因果证据来证明，学生在发展较高层次的阅读技能方面在没有蒙受任何损失的情况下，总体学习效果得到了提高。　

zhangheng1020UID: 2130513

TOTALLY BLUE TODAY
月癫痫之心理难受篇==>要去单位交假条了~~

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-17 21:06 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID: 2130513

6.
Topic

The Trash-Site Safety Council has recently conducted a statewide study of possible harmful effects of garbage sites on the health of people living near the sites. A total of five sites and 300 people were examined. The study revealed, on average, only a small statistical correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes. Furthermore, although it is true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes, there was otherwise no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. Therefore, the council is pleased to announce that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard. We see no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.

Sample Essay
In this argument, the council comes to the conclusion that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard and that therefore, there is no need to restrict the size of the garbage sites or the number of homes built near the site. To support this conclusion, the council cites a study of five garbage sites and three hundred people that showed only a small correlation between the closeness of the homes to the sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among those people living there. Additionally, the council came to this conclusion despite the fact that people living near the largest such site had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes. This argument suffers from several critical weaknesses in logic and information presented.



First of all, the members of the "Trash-Site Safety Council" are not listed, which could make a big difference in the believability of the study. A truly independent council could produce results that could be considered much more reliable than one with members with possible conflicts of interest. However, if the council were made up mainly of people who have an interest in finding that there is no problem with the trash sites - homebuilders or city councilmen, for example - then the study would lack some credibility. Without knowing the backgrounds and priorities of the council members, the argument is greatly weakened.

Secondly, this was cited as a statewide study, but only five sites and three hundred people were studied. Although on average there was only a small statistical correlation shown between the nearness of the trash sites and the homes and people who lived in them, the margin of error could be quite large due to studying only a small sample of people that live near the trash sites in the state. It would be much more persuasive were a large majority of the homes and people near trash sites studied rather than merely a small percentage.

Furthermore, the study cites only unexplained rashes as a health-related problem with some statistical correlation. The presence or absence of other types of health problems is not mentioned in the study. It could be that there were other, perhaps not immediately noticeable health problems such as cancer affecting the people living near the sites. Additionally, the study appears to cover only one moment in time, or at least the duration of the study is not discussed. Perhaps there are long-term effects that cannot be discovered by a study conducted over a short period of time. This weakens the argument by leaving out information that could help to persuade the reader one way or another.

To add to the lack of credibility, the study does not discuss the relative size of the garbage sites or how close the homes and people were to the sites. There is really no data present to allow a proper decision to be made restricting the size of the sites or how close the homes could be located near the trash sites. At the very least, the fact that there is a slightly higher incidence of rashes in those living nearest the biggest trash sites indicates a need for further studies to prove or disprove the idea that trash sites of a certain size or location are health hazards.

In summary, the findings and conclusions of the Trash-Site Safety Council are based mainly on speculation and a small amount of indicative data. The disclosure of the council members motives, the study of a larger sample of the population and trash sites, and further information on other types of health problems and relative nearness of the homes and people to the trash sites would give a much better argument either for or against restrictions on the such sites.

(640 words)

参考译文
［题目］

垃圾场安全委员会最近在全州范围内进行了一项调查，旨在研究垃圾场对居住在附近的居民的身体有可能产生的有害影响。被调查的有五座垃圾场以及300多位居民。研究表明，平均而言，居所紧挨着垃圾场这一事实与这些居所中所居住人口发生的无法解释的疹子之间，仅存在着一种微弱的数据关系。此外，虽然居住在最大的垃圾场附近的居民发疹的程度略高这一事实属实，但在其他方面，垃圾场的大小与人们的健康之间毫无关系。因此，委员会可以甚为欣慰地宣布，目前这套垃圾场体制并不会对健康构成一项重大危险。我们认为毫无必要去限制本州内这类垃圾场的规模，也没有必要去限制垃圾堆附近所建造的房屋数量。

[范文正文]
在本段论述中，委员会得出结论，认为目前的垃圾场体制并没有对健康构成一种重大危险，因此，毫无必要去限制垃圾场的规模或垃圾场周围的住房数量。为了支持这一结论，委员会援引了针对五所垃圾场和300位居民所作的一项研究，据此证明在住房紧挨着垃圾场与居住在那里的人中间所发生的难以名状的疹子之间仅存微弱的关联。此外，委员会在得出这一结论时，全然无视这样一个事实，即居住在这类最大的垃圾场附件的人发病的机率略高。论述在逻辑思路和呈示的信息方面不乏某些关键性的弱点。

其一，"垃圾场安全委员会"的成员没有被清楚列举出来，这一点可令该研究的可信度产生巨大的差异。一个完全独立的委员会所提出的结论，会被视为比一个成员间可能存在着利害关系冲突的委员会所得出的结论可信度高。但是，如果组成该委员会的成员所感兴趣的仅仅是去揭示出垃圾场不存在问题--例如象房地产开发商或市政厅议员，那么，该项研究会失去某些可信度。如果对委员会成员的背景以及他们所优先考虑的问题一无所知，则本段论述倍遭削弱。

其二，所作的研究据称是涵盖整个州的，但被调查的仅有五座垃圾场和300位居民。尽管平均而论，垃圾场的近距离与住所以及与居住在这些房屋内的人之间存在一丝微弱的联系，但由于所研究的仅是该州内居住在垃圾场附近的很小一批人口样本，故误差程度可能会相当的严重。如果在所有垃圾场附近的人和住所当中，有大部分的居民和住所得以被研究，而不只是一个很小的百分比的话，那么，所作的调查将更具说服力。

此外，该研究仅援引难以名状的疹子作为与健康相关的、带有一定统计学关系的问题。该研究没有提及其他类别的健康问题存在与否。情况有可能是，还存在着其他类型的、或许不是那么昭然若揭的健康问题，例如癌症，正影响着居住在这些垃圾场附近的人们。再有，该研究所涵盖的似乎只是一小段时间，或者至少该研究的时间跨度不曾得到讨论。也许，有些长远影响决非是一份只在短期内进行的研究所能涵盖得了的。这一点再度削弱了本段论述，因为可以使读者信服的信息被疏忽了。 使可信度进一步受损的是，该研究没有讨论各垃圾场的相对规模，也没讨论住房和居民离垃圾场到底有多近。实际上，一点都没有数据来允许人们作出一种恰当的判断，是否应该去限制垃圾场的规模，也没讨论住房与垃圾场之间相隔多远才算安全距离。至少，在那些居住在最靠近最大的垃圾场的人身上疹子的发生率略高这一事实表明，有必要进行更深入的研究，以证明或驳倒某种规模或某种位置的垃圾场会对健康构成危害这一想法。 概括而论，垃圾场安全委员会的研究发现和研究结论所主要依据的是揣测和数量有限的说明数据。如能揭示出委员会成员的动机，研究为数更多的人口和垃圾场样本，就其他类别的健康问题以及住房和居民应与垃圾场之间保持怎样的相对距离提供更进一步的信息的话，那么，作者便能作出更为充分的论述，无论是赞成还是反对对垃圾场实施限制。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 09:46 编辑 ]