（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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.

As people grow older, an enzyme known as PEP increasingly breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals involved in learning and memory. But now, researchers have found compounds that prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart. In tests, these compounds almost completely restored lost memory in rats. The use of these compounds should be extended to students who have poor memory and difficulty in concentrating-and therefore serious problems in school performance. Science finally has a solution for problems neither parents nor teachers could solve.

In this argument, the arguer states that researchers have found compounds that keep an enzyme known as PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart, which are known to be involved in learning and memory. The arguer states that tests have shown that these compounds almost completely restored lost memory in rats, and that therefore, these compounds should be administered to students with poor memory and difficulty in concentrating. This argument is unconvincing because it contains several critical flaws in logic.

First of all, the arguer states that as people grow older, PEP breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals that are involved in learning and memory. It is true that generally, as people get older, they tend to have more problems with learning and memory. However, there is no direct link mentioned between the breaking down of the neuropeptide chemicals and the loss of learning ability or memory. Additionally, the arguer mentions neuropeptide chemicals that are broken down by PEP. What the researchers have found is a compound that prevents neuropeptides from breaking apart. These are two different physical actions: the breaking down of neuropeptide chemicals as opposed to the breaking apart of the neuropeptides themselves. Furthermore, it is not stated which of these physical actions is involved with the loss of learning ability and memory. It is not explicitly stated that the breaking down of chemicals causes a loss in learning ability and memory, only that this happens as people grow older. It is also not expressly stated whether the breaking apart of the neuropeptides themselves causes memory loss or a lessened learning ability. Without showing a direct link between the effect of keeping the neuropeptides from breaking apart and a reduction in the loss of memory and learning ability, the efficacy of the compounds is called into question.

Secondly and most obviously, the compounds were only tested on rats. Rats may have a similar genetic structure to humans, but they are most certainly not the same as humans. There may be different causes for the learning and memory problems in rats as opposed to that of humans. The effect of the compounds on rats may also be very different from their effect on human beings. It is absurd in the extreme to advocate giving these compounds to students, even assuming that they would help the students with their studies, without conducting further studies assessing the compounds' overall effects on humans. The argument fails on this particular fact if for no other reason.

Additionally, the arguer begins his or her argument by stating that "as people grow older", PEP breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals involved in learning and memory. At the end of the argument, the arguer advocates extending the compounds that prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart to students who have poor memory and difficulty in concentrating. Students are generally young, not older people. There is no evidence presented that shows what actually causes students to have a poor memory or difficulty in concentrating. Indeed, it is more likely that it is extracurricular activities or a lack of sleep that causes such problems in students, not a problem associated with aging. It is highly unlikely that even if the stated compounds could help prevent the memory loss and decreased learning ability associated with aging that it would have any benefits for students.

In summary, the arguer fails to convince with the argument as presented. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must show a direct link between the breaking apart of neuropeptides and loss of memory and learning ability. Additionally, he or she must show that students' poor memory and difficulty in concentrating is a result of the same process, and that the researcher's compounds would have as beneficial an effect on humans as it seems to have on rats.

(633 words)

参考译文
［题目］

随着人们日渐衰老，一种被称为PEP的酶会不断地分解学习与记忆过程中所涉及到的神经肽化学物。但现在，研究人员已发现了可阻止PEP致使神经肽分裂的化合物。在测试中，这些化合物几乎在老鼠身上能完全恢复缺失的记忆。这些化合物的运用应该也推广到记忆力衰弱或专注力有困难的学生身上，不然将会造成学业表现上的严重问题。科学终于解决了那些令家长和老师束手无策的问题。

[范文正文]
在本段论述中，论述者指出，研究人员已发现了某些化合物，可以阻止一种被称为PEP的酶的物质将神经肽予以分解，而神经肽则是学习和记忆过程中所需涉及到的物质。论述者还宣称，检测结果表明，这些化合物几乎完全恢复了老鼠身上缺失的记忆。因此这些化合物应该让那些记忆力差和难于集中注意力的学生服用。这段论述缺乏说服力，因为它包含着某些逻辑推理方面甚为严重的缺陷。

首先，论述者称，随着人们渐趋衰老，PEP 会分解学习和记忆过程中所涉及的神经肽化学物。确实，随人们渐趋衰老，他们往往会在学习和记忆方面遭遇诸多问题。但是，在神经肽化学物的分解以及学习能力与记忆力丧失之间，却没有提到任何直接的联系。除此之外，论述者提及被PEP所分解的几种神经肽化学物。但研究人员所发现的只是一种可阻止神经肽不致于分裂的化合物。这是两种不同性质的物理作用：神经肽化学物的分解有别于神经肽自身的分裂。此外，原论述并未陈述这两种物理作用中的那一种与学习能力和记忆能力的丧失相涉。论述者没有明确陈述化学物的分解导致了学习能力和记忆能力的丧失，而只是陈述这种情形只是随着人们日趋年迈而发生。原论述中也没有确切地陈述神经肽自身的分裂是否会导致记忆缺失或学习能力下降。如果无法在阻止神经肽分裂所能产生的作用与减少记忆能力和学习能力丧失之间证明某种直接的联系，那么，化合物的效用将令人质疑。 第二，也是极为明显地，化合物只是在老鼠身上进行了测试。虽然老鼠与人类具有类似的基因结构，但它们无论如何并不等同于人类。对于学习和记忆问题，老鼠所遇到的原因很可能全然不同于人类所遇到的原因。在没有作进一步的研究来估评化合物对人类所产生的总体效果的情况下，就去提倡将这些化合物供学生服用，甚至假设它们有助于学生提高其学习效果，这实乃荒唐至极。即使不是出于其他原因的话，就这一特定事实本身，该段论述根本就站不住脚。 进一步而言，论述者在其论述的开始陈述道，"随着人们渐趋衰老"，PEP会将学习和记忆过程中所涉及的神经肽化学物进行分解。在论述的结尾之处，论述者倡导将那些可阻止PEP致使神经肽分裂的化合物推广至那些记忆力和专注力差的学生身上。学生普遍而言都是年轻人，而不是老年人。论述者没有拿出任何证据来证明究竟是什么原因实际导至学生们记忆力和专注力下降。较有可能的是，是那些课外活动，或缺少充足的睡眠，导致了学生身上的这些问题。即使所提及的那些化合物真的有助于防止与衰老相关的记忆缺失问题和学习能力下降问题，它们也极不可能也能为学生带来任何的裨益。 总而言之，论述者没能用其提出的论据来说服我们。若要使其论述在逻辑上成立，论述者必须在神经肽的分裂与记忆能力和学习能力的缺失之间证明某种直接的联系。此外，论述者必须证明学生记忆能力差和注意力难以集中均是同一过程造成的，并且研究人员所发现的化合物对人类所产生的效果会对老鼠似乎所产生的效果同样的好。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 10:42 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.
In a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.

This argument is based on two separate surveys of the citizens of Leeville, conducted by the University of Leeville. In the first survey, most respondents said that their preferred reading material was literary classics. A follow-up study by the same researchers found that mystery novels were the most frequently checked out books from each of the public libraries in Leeville. The arguer concludes that the respondents in the first study therefore misrepresented their own reading habits. This argument does not follow the facts and is therefore unconvincing due to several flaws in logic.

First of all, it is possible that none of the citizens who responded to the first survey were participants in the second survey. Statistically speaking, it is entirely possible that the first survey contained a greater majority of literary classics readers than are present in the general population of Leeville. The difference in the first study and the study of the books that were actually checked out from the library may purely be that the respondents had different interests in literature, therefore disallowing the arguer's conclusion that the first group misrepresented its preferred reading material.

Secondly, it is possible that the difference in the survey results could be attributed to the lack of availability of literary classics in the Leeville public libraries. Simply put, the library may have thousands of mystery novels available for checkout but very few literary classics in their collections. Leeville citizens may actually prefer to read literary classics - the public libraries simply may not have them for the citizens to check out and read. Another possibility is that the Leeville public libraries restrict the checkout of literary classics - perhaps treating the books as a type of "reference" material that must be read inside the library and cannot be checked out. Furthermore, it is possible that no matter how many literary classics the Leeville public libraries have, the citizens have read them all in the past, perhaps many times over, and they are therefore not checked out. These possibilities further weaken the argument that the first respondents misrepresented their reading habits.

Thirdly, literary classics are the type of book that people tend to buy for personal collections rather than checking them out of a library. It is a distinct possibility that the citizens of Leeville purchase literary classics to read and then keep in home libraries rather than checking them out of the library. Leeville citizens may prefer to read literary classics and therefore buy them for their own personal collections, thus checking other types of reading materials out of the library rather than buying them to own forever. The arguer's conclusion that the first set of respondents misrepresented their reading habits is critically weakened by this possibility.

Finally, this argument does not account for the possibility that the survey samples themselves were flawed. There is no indication given about how many people were surveyed, the demographics involved, or the specific locations involved. For example, richer people would tend not to visit public libraries but they are possibly more predisposed to reading literary classics. Similarly, people who visit public libraries may be more predisposed to reading mystery novels than literary classics. Without knowing the relationship between those first surveyed and those who visit the public libraries, it is not possible to draw a proper conclusion about the accuracy of the first group's statements.

In summary, the arguer fails to convince by jumping to a conclusion that fails to hold up to analysis. To strengthen the argument, the arguer needs to find further research that eliminates these other possibilities that preclude the judgment that the first group of respondents misrepresented their reading habits.

(614 words)

参考译文
［题目］
"在一项由Leeville大学就Leeville市民阅读习惯所作的研究中，大多数受访对象称,他们偏爱将文学名著作为其阅读材料。但是，由相同的研究人员所作的一项跟踪调查却发现，每个公共图书馆外借得最频繁的图书均为志怪小说类。因此，我们可以得出这样的结论，即第一项研究中的受访对象没能如实地描述出他们的阅读习惯。"

[范文正文]
上述论断基于由Leeville大学对Leeville市民所从事的两项互为独立的调查。在前一项调查中，大多数受访对象称他们较为偏爱的阅读材料是文学名著。由相同的研究人员所作的一项跟踪调查则发现，志怪小说是Leeville市每个公共图书馆外借频率最高的一类图书。论述者便据此得出结论认为，这样看来，第一项研究中的受访对象没能如实地描述他们自己的阅读习惯。这段论述没能遵循事实，因而由于逻辑方面某些缺陷而无从令人置信。

首先，有可能是，对第一项调查作出问卷回答的公民，没有一个人参加了第二项调查。从统计角度而言，完全有可能的情形是，第一项调查涵盖了一个比Leeville总人口中所存在的来得更大的文学名著多数读者群。第一项研究与其后对图书馆实际外借的书所作的那项研究，二者间的差异可能纯粹是因为受访对象对文学拥有全然不同的兴趣，因此否定了论述者所谓第一组受访对象没有如实表述其所喜爱的阅读材料的结论。

其次，两项调查结果之间的差异或许可以归诸于这样一个原因，即Leeville市的公共图书馆内缺乏文学名著。说得简单一点，图书馆可能有数千册志怪小说供外借但却没能收藏多少册文学名著。Leeville市民实际上可能甚是偏爱阅读文学名著，但公共图书馆就是没有此类图书外借供市民阅读。另一个可能性是，Leeville公共图书馆限制文学名著的外借--可能只将这类图书当作"参考"资料，只允许在馆内阅读，不得外借。进一步而言，也有可能是，无论Leeville公共图书馆藏有多少册文学名著，市民们在过去已将它们悉数读完，甚至读过许多遍，因此，这些书便不再有人借阅。这些可能性也进一步削弱了第一组受访对象没有如实表述其阅读习惯的论点。

第三，对于文学名著这类书，人们往往购买来作为个人藏书，而不太倾向于从图书馆借阅。一个显著的可能性是，Leeville市民购买文学名著来阅读并随后将它们收藏于家庭图书馆而不再去公共图书馆借阅。Leeville市民可能喜爱阅读文学名著并因此购置它们作为个人藏书，因此只从图书馆借阅其他类型的阅读材料，而不是去购买这些材料来永久地拥有。论述者关于第一组受访对象没有如实表述其阅读习惯的结论，由于这一可能性而遭到致命的削弱。

最后，这段论述没有解释这样一种可能性，即调查样本本身带有缺陷。论述者没有摆出任何资料表明到底有多少市民接受了调查，或所涉及的人口统计学方法是什么，或所涉及的具体地点。例如，较富有的人往往不太会光顾公共图书馆，但他们可能更喜爱阅读文学名著。同样地，光顾公共图书馆的人可能更喜爱阅读志怪小说而不爱读文学名著。如果不知道第一组受访群体与光顾公共图书馆的群体之间的关系，就不可能就第一组群体的人的陈述的精确性得出一个恰当的结论。

总而言之，论述者没有能说服我们，因为他（她）过于匆促地得出的结论无法经得住推敲。若要使其论点更具分量，论述者需要寻找出进一步的研究，排除掉其他那些会否定掉第一组受访对象没能如实地表述其阅读习惯这一判断的可能性。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 10:46 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9.
A recent study shows that people living on the continent of North America suffer 9 times more chronic fatigue and 31 times more chronic depression than do people living on the continent of Asia. Interestingly, Asians, on average, eat 20 grams of soy per day, whereas North Americans eat virtually none. It turns out that soy contains phytochemicals called isoflavones, which have been found to possess disease-preventing properties. Thus, North Americans should consider eating soy on a regular basis as a way of preventing fatigue and depression.

In this argument, the arguer cites a study showing that North Americans suffer from an amazingly higher rate of chronic fatigue and chronic depression than people living in Asia. From an unknown source, the arguer states that Asians eat much more soy than North Americans, who eat almost none, and that soy contains disease-preventing properties. The arguer then concludes his or her argument by stating that North Americans should consider regularly eating soy as a means of battling fatigue and depression. This argument suffers from at least four critical fallacies.

For the sake of this argument, we will assume that the studies and the statistics about North Americans' and Asians' soy eating habits are correct, and that isoflavones have been found to have disease-fighting properties. Given that, there is still a problem with the arguer directly correlating the eating of soy with the prevention of disease and depression. First of all, simply because soy may have disease-preventing properties, that does not mean that it can therefore fight chronic fatigue and chronic depression. Fatigue and depression may not actually even be considered as "diseases", therefore even given the fact that soy has disease-fighting properties, it would have no effect on the "nondiseases" of fatigue and depression. Secondly, even assuming that fatigue and depression are diseases, they are not specifically mentioned as diseases that soy or isoflavones are able to prevent. Perhaps soy can help prevent osteoporosis (bone loss), mumps or even chicken pox, but that does not mean that it can specifically address the problems of chronic fatigue and chronic depression. These two critical weaknesses alone make the argument unconvincing.

Furthermore, the arguer's conclusion is based on the idea that diet alone can prevent fatigue and depression by comparing the diets of North Americans and Asians. It is highly unlikely that diet alone is responsible for the tremendous difference in the rates of fatigue and depression between the two populations. Other factors such as lifestyles, occupations, residence in city or rural areas and levels of stress may play a much bigger factor than diet. Additionally, the arguer states that soy contains phytochemicals called isoflavones, which supposedly have disease-preventing properties. What is not stated, however, is whether these isoflavones are contained in a form in soy that is usable by the human body. It is possible that the particular configuration of the phytochemicals found in soy products is not usable by the human body, thereby producing no beneficial effects by people eating more soy products. In and of themselves, isoflavones may prevent certain diseases, but perhaps those found in soy are of no benefit to humans. By failing to address these possibilities, the arguer has presented an unconvincing argument.

In summary, the argument fails due to four major flaws in logic. First, "disease-preventing" properties does not mean "fatigue and depression" preventing properties. Secondly, fatigue and depression may not even be considered as diseases. Thirdly, the arguer ignores the probability that diet alone is not the sole reason behind the increased rates of fatigue and depression for North Americans as opposed to Asians. Finally, isoflavones as found in soy may not produce the same beneficial effects as when it is found in other forms. To strengthen the argument and conclusion, the arguer should present evidence that directly links diet to fatigue and depression as well as evidence that shows that soy can specifically prevent chronic fatigue and chronic depression in North Americans.

(576 words)


参考译文
[题目]
一项最近的研究表明，居住在北美大陆上的人们要比居住在亚洲大陆上的人们患慢性疲倦和慢性忧郁症的比例分别超出9倍和31倍。有意思的是，亚洲人平均每天只吃20克的大豆，而北美洲人却几乎一点都不吃。研究表明，大豆含有被称为异黄酮的植物化学物，这些植物化学物经科学家研究，发现拥有防病特性。因此，北美洲人应该考虑经常性地吃大豆，以此作为一种防止疲劳和压抑的方法。　

[范文正文]
在本段论述中，论述者援引了一项研究来证明，北美洲人患慢性疲倦和慢性忧郁症的比例要比居住在亚洲的人令人惊讶地高。从一项来源不明的资料中，作者陈述道，亚洲人所吃的大豆要远多于北美人，而北美人则几乎一点都不吃，而大豆却含有防病的特性。论述者在其论述的结束处陈述首，北美人应考虑经常性地吃些大豆，以此作为一种抗疲劳和抗忧郁的方法。本段论述至少犯下了四个关键性的逻辑谬误。

为了论述的缘故，我们假定关于北美人和亚洲人吃大豆的习惯这方面的研究和数据是完全正确的，并且异黄酮确实被科学家发现具有防病功效。即使在承认这些条件的情况下，论述者将食用大豆与防止疾病和抵抗忧郁直接联系起来，这一做法本身仍存在着问题。首先，即使大豆有可能具备防病特性，但这并非意味着它因此就能抵抗慢性疲倦和慢性忧郁症。疲倦和忧郁实际上甚至还不可能被视作"疾病"，因此，尽管大豆具有防病作用属实，但它对于疲倦和忧郁这些"非疾病"可能毫无作用。其次，即使我们假定疲倦和忧郁可被视为疾病，但它们没有被具体提到是属于大豆或异黄酮所能预防的那类病症。或许，大豆可以预防骨质疏松症，流行性腮腺炎或甚至是水痘，但这并非意味着它能具体地治疗慢性疲倦和慢性忧郁症这样一些问题。这二个关键性的弱点本身就足以使得该论述缺乏可信度。

进而言之，论述者的结论所依据的是这样一个理念，即通过比较北美人和亚洲人的饮食，饮食本身可以来防止疲倦和忧郁。但很难想象饮食本身造成了两类人口之间患上疲倦和忧郁症比例方面的巨大差异。其他诸多因素，如生活方式，职业，居住在都市还是乡村，以及压力程度所产生的影响可能要比饮食大得多。此外，论述者陈述道，大豆含有一种可被称为异黄酮的植物化学物，据称具有防病功效。但论述者没有作出陈述，即这些异黄酮是否是以一种被人体使用的方式被包含在大豆中。有可能是，大豆产品中所发现的植物化学物，其特定的结构并不能为人体所利用，从而对食用较多大豆产品的人并不能产生任何益处。就其本身而言，异黄酮或许可能预防某些疾病，但大豆中所发现的异黄酮对人类毫无益处，这也是有可能的。由于没有探究这些可能性，论述者所摆出的这段论述便失去了说服力。

总的说来，本段论述因为四大逻辑缺陷而难以站得住脚。首先，"防病"特性并不能等同于"疲倦和忧郁症"预防特性。其次，疲倦和忧郁甚至还不能被视为疾病。第三，论述者忽视了这样一种可能性，即饮食本身并不是造成北美人相对于亚洲人疲倦与忧郁症比例上升的唯一原因。最后，大豆中所被发现的异黄酮可能并不能产生与在其他形式中所发现的异黄酮相同的益处。若要增强其论点和结论的力度，论述者应该拿出证据，将饮食与疲倦及忧郁直接联系起来，且提供证据来证明大豆能具体地防止北美人的慢性疲倦和慢性忧郁症。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 10:51 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.

The following is taken from the editorial section of the local newspaper in Rockingham.

"In order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. The old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town. In addition, it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter and cool it in summer. The new, larger building would be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall. Furthermore, it would be possible to rent out some of the space in the new building, thereby generating income for the town of Rockingham."

In this argument, the author of the editorial states that a century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by a larger, more energy-efficient building. As reasons for the destruction of the old building, the author states that it is too small for the number of town employees, and that it is very costly to heat during the winter and cool during the summer. Finally, the author states that the town could receive income from the new building by renting out some space in the newly constructed building. This argument fails because it is based on mere speculation and opinion and a "zero-sum" game of win or lose.

To begin with, the author mentions energy efficiency and the differences in the costs of heating and cooling the two buildings as the main basis for destroying the old building and constructing a larger one. Certainly it is possible to build a more energy-efficient new building - energy-saving technology in buildings has advanced dramatically over the past one hundred years. However, what the author fails to address is the fact that the old building could be remodeled or renovated to be made more energy efficient, perhaps equal to that or superior to any new building that could be constructed at a reasonable expense. The author also mentions that the old building is too small to comfortably handle the town's employees. Again, the old building could be remodeled or perhaps expanded to be able to accommodate more employees. For that matter, perhaps the town has too many employees and needs to consider downsizing. By failing to address these possibilities, the author's argument is greatly weakened.

Furthermore, there are other options that the author has failed to discuss in his or her argument. Rather than destroying the old building, another new building could be constructed to supplement the old town hall, which could still be renovated to become more energy-efficient. This would be a "win - win" situation where the townspeople get to keep the old building but gain a new building as well. Additionally, the author mentions the possibility of renting out space in the new building to earn income for the town, which would seem to indicate that he or she advocates constructing the building to a larger size than what the town actually needs for its current purposes. A careful cost/benefit analysis would need to be performed to determine whether the extra income created would cover the costs of constructing a larger building before simply stating that it would be a moneymaker for Rockingham.

Finally, the author ignores the aesthetic and historic cultural value of a century old building to the town of Rockingham. The author states that some citizens have proposed a new energy efficient building but fails to mention whether they also advocate the tearing down of the old building. When discussing the "considerable amount of money" that Rockingham can save, the author should take into consideration the value that a traditional old town hall can bring to a community, whether in monetary or sense-of-community terms.

In summary, the author fails to convince with this argument by failing to consider other possible options that could both address the current problems with the old building while still allowing the community to keep it. To strengthen the argument, the author should have presented a cost/benefit analysis that analyzes the relative costs of his or her proposed plan as compared to other options such as renovating the old building or constructing a smaller supplemental building. Without such an analysis, the author is merely stating an unconvincing opinion.
(600 words)

参考译文
[题目]

下述文字摘自Rockingham地方报纸的社论部分。

"为了节省相当可观的一部分费用，Rockingham市一个多世纪古老的市政厅应予拆毁，代之以某些市民所倡议的更宽敞的、更节约能源的一幢大楼。旧市政厅规模太小，无法舒适地容纳市政府所雇用的全部员工。此外，旧市政厅夏季降温和冬季供热的成本极为昂贵。更为宽敞的新大楼将更为节约能源，与旧大厅相比，每平方英尺降温和加热的成本较低。此外，新大楼内的一部分空间还可以出租，从而给Rockingham镇带来收益。"


[ 范文正文]
在本项论述中，本社论作者宣称，一个多世纪古老的市政厅应予拆除，代之以一座更为宽敞、更为节省能源的大楼。作为拆毁旧大楼的原因，作者宣称旧大楼过于拥挤，无法容纳市政府雇员，并且，此大楼冬季加热和夏季降温的成本极为昂贵。最后，作者宣称，市政府还可以通过将新建大楼的某些空间出租从而从新大楼那里获取收益。本论点无法站得住脚，因为它基于纯粹的臆测和个人看法，以及一种"得失所系"的输赢游戏。

首先，作者提及能源的节省，以及两幢大楼降温和供热方面的差异，作为拆毁旧大楼和建造更为宽敞的大楼的主要依据。当然，新造的大楼完全有可能来得更加节约能源--建筑物的节能技术在过去一百年中已获得了长足的进步。然而，作者却没能探讨这样一个事实，即旧大楼是可以进行改建或翻新，以便使其更加节约能源，其节能效果或许会与任何一座花合理费用建造起来的新大楼的节能效果同样的好，或甚至更好。作者同样也提到旧大楼规模过小，无法舒适地容纳全体市政府雇员。再一次地，对旧大楼可以进行改建或扩建，以便能容纳更多的雇员。在这一点上，市政府可能雇佣的员工为数过多，需要考虑精简机构。由于没能探讨这些可能性，作者的论点在很大程度上被削弱了。 此外，作者在其论述中还有一些其他的选择方案没能予以讨论。在不拆毁旧大楼的前提下，另一幢新大楼也可以建造起来，对旧市政厅构成一种补充，并且对旧大楼仍可以进行改造，使其变得更加节药能源。这将创造出"双赢"的局面，全镇民众一方面可以继续拥用旧大楼，另一方面又能拥有一座新大楼。此外，作者提到这样一种可能性，即将新大楼部分空间进行出租，以便为市政府赚取收入。这一点似乎表明，作者所倡导的是去建造一座远超过市政府目前实际用途的大楼。作者在单纯陈述新大楼可为Rockingham镇广开财源之前，必须进行仔细认真成本/收益审计，以确定通过出租部分空间所产生的收益是否能涵盖建造一座规模较大的大楼所需的开支。

最后，作者无视这座长达一个多世纪古老的大楼对Rockingham镇所具有的美学与历史价值。作者陈述道，某些市民曾提议建造一座更为节约能源的新大楼，但这位作者没有提到这些市民是否倡导将旧大楼拆毁。当作者在讨论Rockingham镇所能节省的"相当一部分费用"时，这位作者应该考虑到一座传统的旧市政大厅所能给一个社区带来的价值，无论是在金钱方面，还是在社区认同感方面。

总而言之，作者没能以其论述来说服我们，因为他（她）没能考虑其他一些有可能的选择方案，这些选择方案既能解决旧大楼的现有问题，又能保证Rockingham社区继续拥有这幢旧大楼。若要使其论点更具有力度，作者应该拿出一份成本/收益分析，对他（她）所提出的方案进行成本分析，并将它与其他选择方案--如对旧大楼进行改造，或建造一座规模较小的补充性大楼--的成本进行比较。没有这样的分析，该作者所陈述的仅仅只是一个无法令人置信的意见而已。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 11:00 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 套路感太强，不推荐
Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. The best solution to this problem is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. It is common knowledge that tourists are willing to pay money to tour some of the architect's buildings, so it can be expected that tourists will want to visit this new building. The income from the fees charged to tourists will soon cover the building costs. Furthermore, such a building will attract new students as well as donations from alumni. And even though such a building will be much larger than our current need for student housing, part of the building can be used as office space.

This argument states that a famous architect that is known for futuristic and experimental buildings should be commissioned to build student housing for Claitown University as a means of gaining affordable housing for its students as well as funding the project. The arguer states that tourists would want to visit such student housing buildings and that the income from tourist fees would soon pay for the building. The arguer also states that the building would attract new students and donations from alumni, and that part of the oversized building could be used as office space. This argument is based on problematic reasoning and fails to convince for several reasons. (这样的开题不推荐)

First of all, the arguer assumes that because some of a famous architect's other buildings attract tourists and fees, tourists will also pay money to visit the new student housing building built by him or her. There is no justification for such reasoning. It is likely that such other buildings were built in tourist-type areas with the specific purpose in mind of attracting tourists. Examples of such buildings abound: the Empire State Building and the former World Trade Centers of New York, the Oriental Pearl of Shanghai, the Louvre museum building in Paris - all were built with the intention of attracting tourists. These buildings and their surrounding areas all have some intrinsic tourist value. It is highly likely that no matter how unusual the building, very few tourists would go out of their way to a college campus to see a student dormitory building. The argument lacks credibility from this standpoint.

Secondly, hiring a famous architect will likely be prohibitively more expensive as such architect's services are in constant demand across the entire world, and only so many buildings can be designed in a certain period of time. The additional fee that the architect alone can command, combined with the likelihood that a futuristic or experimental design will also be tremendously more expensive, makes this idea unworkable. The arguer must be assuming an enormously large income from tourist's fees, which as stated before is extremely unlikely. This second point critically weakens the argument.

Thirdly, the arguer fails to consider the viewpoint of the students that would be living in the futuristic or experimental housing. He or she assumes that such a building would attract students to the university, just as it would supposedly attract tourists. Even assuming that it would attract tourists, what student, or person for that matter, wants to live in a home that is constantly toured by strangers? Furthermore, there are safety factors to consider. How safe can a futuristic or experimental building be? This argument must be rejected on safety grounds if for no other reason as an "experimental" building is simply not appropriate for use as student housing.

Furthermore, the arguer assumes that the building would attract donations from alumni. On the contrary, the opposite is more likely. An expensive architect building an expensive student housing project is likely to anger alumni, not please them - it would be seen as a waste of money and they would refuse to donate any more to the school. Additionally, without any basis in fact, the arguer states that the building would be much larger than current student housing needs, but that the extra room could be used for office space. This suggests that the arguer has already seen some plans or made some plans, indicating that there may be a conflict of interest here that should be investigated further.

In summary, without actual cost and income estimates, this argument is based on nothing more than pure speculation and perhaps wishful thinking. The argument at best is unconvincing - at worst it reeks of conflict of interest that may warrant investigation into the motives behind the argument.

(627 words)

参考译文
[题目]
Claitown大学需要为学生提供较为廉价的住房，以及需要寻找到一种方法，来为建造此类住房提供资金。解决这一问题的最佳方案是将建筑设计委托给一位以实验性和未来主义建筑风格著称的建筑设计师。众所周知，观光旅游者均愿意花钱去游览该建筑师设计的某些建筑，因此，我们可以预料，游人将会参观这一新建大楼。从向游人收取的费用中产生的收益将很快就涵盖建造成本。此外，这样一座建筑将吸引新学生来就读，也能吸引校友的捐款。虽然这样一座建筑规模之大会超出我们目前学生住房的需要，但大楼的部分区域可以用作办公空间。

[范文正文]
本项论述宣称，一位以未来主义和实验性建筑风格著称的著名建筑师应被授予委托，去为Claitown大学设计建造学生住房，作为一种手段来为其学生获取廉租房，并为该建设项目筹得资金。论述者宣称，旅游者们将希望来参观这样的学生住房建筑，并且从旅游者收费中所产生的收益将很快就可以支付大楼的建设成本。论述者还称，该建筑还将吸引新生入学，吸引校友捐款，并且大楼规模超大部分可用作办公空间。上述论述所依据的是相当成问题的逻辑推理，由于多方面的原因而无法令人信服。

首先，论述者假定，由于一位著名建筑师其他一些建筑物中的有一些曾吸引过旅游者和收费来源，故旅游者们同样也会花钱来参观由这位建筑师所设计建造的这幢新的学生公寓楼。这样一种逻辑推理缺乏丝毫理据。情况有可能是，其他此类建筑建造于旅游区，建造时带着专门吸引旅游者的设想。此类建筑实例比比皆是：纽约的帝国大厦和前世贸大厦，上海的东方明珠塔，巴黎的卢浮宫博物馆建筑--所有这些建筑的建设意图就是为着吸引旅游者。这些建筑以及它们的周边地区都具有一定内在的旅游价值。非常有可能出现的情形是，无论所造的大楼多么的非同异常，很少会有旅游者特意去往一所大学校园，去观赏一幢学生的宿舍楼。从这一观点判断，上述论述缺乏可信度。

其次，雇佣一位著名建筑师将会昂贵至极，因为这样的建筑师，其服务在全球范围内供不应求。这位建筑师一个人所值的额外费用，加诸未来派或实验性设计的费用也将极其高昂这一可能性，使得这一想法无法操作。论述者必定是假定向旅游者收取的费用能带来极为巨大的效益。但这一点我早已陈述过是极为不可能的。这第二点也严重地削弱了论述者的上述论点。

第三，论述者也没有考虑到入住到这座未来派或实验性建筑中的学生的看法。这位论述者自以为这样的一座大楼会吸引学生来该大学入学，如同论述者所假设的能吸引旅游者那样。即使我们假定这幢大楼真的能吸引旅游者，但哪一个学生，或哪一个人会愿意居住在一个不断被陌生人浏览观光的居室里呢？此外，还需要考虑安全因素。一座未来派或实验性质的大楼，其安全程度如何？即使不是因为其他缘由的话，单纯基于安全因素的考量，上述论述亦必须予以推翻，因为一座"实验性质的"大楼根本就不宜用作学生住房。

最后，论述者假设所要建造的大楼将能从校友们那里吸引捐款。相反情况更有可能适得其反。聘请一位收费高昂的建筑师来设计建造一座费用高昂的学生公寓，这一工程可能令校友们怒发冲冠，而不是取悦于他们--这会被视作浪费钱财，他们有可能拒绝再向该校提供任何捐助。此外，在没有任何事实依据的情况下，论述者陈述道，拟建的大楼将会规模庞大，超出目前学生的居住需求，但多余的空间可用作办公空间。这暗示论述者早已预见到了某些计划，或已制定出了某些计划，表明这里存在着某种利害关系的冲突，而这一点正是需要作进一步调查的。

总而言之，在没有实际的成本和收入估计的情况下，上述论述仅仅是基于纯粹的臆测，以及或许是一厢情愿式的思维模式。该论述充其量也是无法令人置信的--从最不利的一方面看，它带有利害关系冲突的色彩，使人觉得有必要调查本项论述背后所隐匿的真实动机。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 11:04 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.

The following appeared in a business magazine.

"As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods."

This argument states that the Promofoods company recalled eight million cans of tuna for testing after numerous complaints from consumers of dizziness and nausea. Promofoods own chemists found that samples of the recalled cans had three of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for symptoms of dizziness and nausea, but that these three are also found naturally in other types of canned foods. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not contain any chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on faulty reasoning; therefore the argument is unconvincing.

To begin with, the argument states that there have been "numerous" consumer complaints, obviously enough to warrant the recall of eight million cans of tuna. The arguer goes on to state that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the cans of tuna. This part of the argument has two flaws - first of all, the testers are not independent and may indeed have a duty to find that there is nothing wrong with the tuna, and secondly, the number of cans that were tested as a sample is not disclosed. The first flaw in the argument could be rectified by simply having outside, independent researchers test the samples of the recalled tuna. As it stands, the test results are somewhat suspicious due to the fact that Promofoods employees conducted the testing. The second flaw may or may not be a major problem, depending upon the number of cans that were sampled and how the sample was chosen. It could be that the defect was with only a certain production date or location, in which case the defects might not be found because the problem cans were not included in the recall or the sample. Additionally, if the number of cans sampled was too small, the sample may not have been representative of all of the cans of tuna, therefore possibly skewing the results one way or the other. To solve this problem, a statistically proper sample should be independently tested with the relative reliability of the numbers included in the argument.

Furthermore, the researchers found that three out of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea were actually found in the recalled cans of tuna, but that they are also naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods. This part of the argument is also very weak, for at least two reasons. First, the argument does not state what levels of these chemicals were found in the Promofood tuna as compared with other types of canned foods. It does not state whether the chemical levels were lower, the same, or higher. The absence of this information critically weakens the argument. Moreover, the argument fails to mention any other possibly hazardous chemicals that may have been found in the cans tested. The arguer merely states that five of the eight most commonly blamed chemicals were not found. This argument leaves open the possibility, if not the probability, that other chemicals could have been found but not mentioned. For both of these reasons, the argument fails to convince.

In summary, the wording of the argument suggests that there is something more to what the chemists found in the cans of tuna than was disclosed in the article in the business magazine. To be more persuasive and to end speculation, Promofoods should have a statistically relevant sample of all cans of its tuna tested by independent testing labs, with a full report released listing all chemicals found in the cans and their relative levels, not just what was not found in an unknown number of cans.

(605 words)

参考译文
[题目]

下述文字摘自某份商业杂志。
"鉴于消费者对头晕和恶心进行了诸多投诉，Promofoods公司去年要求将8百万听金枪鱼罐头回收进行检测。Promofoods公司的检测结论是，这些听装仪器确实不含有可构成健康危险的化学物质。这一结论所依据的是这样一个事实，即来自Promofoods公司的化学分析师对回收的听装金枪鱼进行了抽样检测，结果发现，在被普遍被认为会导致头晕和恶心症状的八种化学物质中，有五种被发现根本不存在于任何所被抽检的听装鱼中。这些化学分析师确实发现剩下的三种涉嫌化学物质可自然而然地发现于所有其他任何种类的听装食物中。"

[范文正文]
上述论述陈述道，Promofoods公司回收了在消费者对其听装金枪鱼进行头晕和恶心的诸多投诉后回收了八百万听金枪鱼进行了检测。Promofoods公司自己的化学分析师发现，回收的听装金枪鱼样品中含有八种最普遍被认为会引发头晕和恶心症状的化学物质中的三种，但这三种也同样自然地发现于其他类型的听装食物中。Promofoods公司的结论是，这些听装食物并不含有任何对身体健康构成威胁的任何化学物质。这一论述基于甚为谬误的逻辑推理，因此所述论点全然无法令人信服。

首先，上述论述陈述道，已出现了"诸多"消费者的投拆，数目之众显然足以有必要将八百万听金枪鱼收回。论述者接着陈述道，来自Promofoods公司的化学分析师抽查了听装的金枪鱼。论述中的这一部分含有两个缺陷。其一，检测者不是来自独立的机构，甚至他们有义务不要去查找出金枪鱼有任何的问题。其二，所被检测的听数没有得到披露。论述中的第一个缺陷较易于纠正，只要邀请外部的独立的研究人员来检验收回的金枪鱼样品即可。但就目前情况来看，由于来自Promofoods公司的员工自己在进行检验，故检验结果会相当令人怀疑。第二个缺陷可能是也可能不是一个重大问题，取决于抽查的金枪鱼罐头数量有多少，以及样本是如何选取的。情况有可能是，产品缺陷仅存在于某些生产日期或生产地点的产品，在这种情况下，由于有问题的罐装金枪鱼没能被囊括在回收的产品中或样本中，故产品的缺陷就无法被查出。此外，如果所抽查的听数太少，则该样本可能就无法来典型地代表所有的金枪鱼罐头，从而有可能以一种方式或另一种方式使检测结果发生偏差。要解决这一问题，应独立检测一份在统计学意义上恰当的样本，其数量的相对可靠性也应囊括在上述论述中。

另外，研究人员发现，在八种最普遍地被认为导致头晕和恶心症状的化学物质中，有三种确实在回收的金枪鱼产品中被发现，那些化学物质相对于其他类型的罐头食品而言，其含量如何。它没有明确陈述化学物含量较低，还是相同，还是较高。这些信息的缺乏严重削弱了该项论述。此外，该项论述没有提及在所被检测的罐头中可能被发现的其他任何可能具有危险的化学物质。论述者只是陈述道八种最普遍被认为有问题的化学物中。有五种未被发现。论述者置这样一种可能性--如果说不是或然性的话--于不顾，即其他化学物早已被人发现，但却没被提及。由于这样的一些原因，该项论述无法令人信服。

总之，该项论述中的措辞暗示，化学分析师在金枪鱼罐头中所发现的东西远不止这份商业杂志中的披露的内容。为了更具说服力并终止人们的猜测，Promofoods公司应拿出其所有金枪鱼罐头在统计学意义上相关的一份样本，由独立的检测实验室来检验，并发布一份翔实的报告，将罐头中所发现的全部化学物质及其含量一一列举出来，而不是仅令列举出数量不明的罐头中未被发现的物质。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 11:08 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.
The following appeared in a local newspaper.

"People should not be misled by the advertising competition between Coldex and Cold-Away, both popular over-the-counter cold medications that anyone can purchase without a doctor's prescription. Each brand is accusing the other of causing some well-known, unwanted side effect: Coldex is known to contribute to existing high blood pressure and Cold-Away is known to cause drowsiness. But the choice should be clear for most health-conscious people: Cold-Away has been on the market for much longer and is used by more hospitals than is Coldex. Clearly, Cold-Away is more effective."

In this argument, the arguer concludes that Cold-Away is "clearly" a more effective over-the-counter cold medication. To support this conclusion, the arguer states that the brand Coldex is known to contribute to existing high blood pressure while Cold-Away is known to cause drowsiness. The arguer further states that Cold-Away is better for health-conscious people because it is used by more hospitals than the other brand and it has also been on the market for much longer. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies and is ultimately unconvincing.

First of all, one wonders who the writer is of such a one-sided argument. The argument states that each brand has "accused" the other of causing well-known and undesirable side effects, then states that Coldex is known to contribute to existing high blood pressure while Cold-Away is known to cause drowsiness. Coldex does not cause high blood pressure, it is said to merely contribute to an existing medical condition. The wording of the argument could lead a casual reader into believing that Coldex causes high blood pressure, which is a much more serious side effect than drowsiness in most situations. This brings up the possibility that this particular argument was written by an employee or paid copywriter of the Cold-Away company. No evidence other than the statement of the author is given to support the allegations of side effects, which further weakens the argument.

Secondly, the arguer states that for most health-conscious people, it should be a clear choice in choosing Cold-Away because it has been on the market much longer and is used by more hospitals than Coldex. First of all, simply being on the market longer in and of itself is not indicative of what medication a health-conscious person should choose. Indeed, many drugs that are new to the market have been developed with fewer and less serious side effects yet with greater efficacy of treatment. Secondly, there are a multitude of reasons that more hospitals might use one medication rather than another. It may be less expensive, which is important to the evermore cost-conscious hospital industry. The Cold-Away company may provide far and away more free samples, so that it costs the hospital nothing to dispense to patients, thereby increasing its use. Or perhaps the Cold-Away company simply has better marketing, thus giving the perception that it is better for health conscious people; therefore more hospitals use it. By neglecting to address these possibilities, the argument fails to convince that Cold-Away is clearly better for health-conscious people.

Furthermore, the arguer concludes: "Clearly, Cold-Away is more effective." There is absolutely no evidence of any kind presented in the argument that addresses the idea of which cold medication is more effective. Side effects are discussed, and (specious) reasons are given why Cold-Away should be chosen by health conscious people. However, even assuming that all statements in the argument are true, there is nothing in the argument that discusses whether Coldex or Cold-Away is more effective. Again, length of time on the market is not an indicator of effectiveness, indeed it is extremely likely that a more recent market entry would be more effective (in this case Coldex) due to developments in medical technology. Similarly, if more hospitals are using Cold-Away than Coldex, there are factors other than effectiveness that could be the cause.

To summarize, a careful reading of the argument shows that there is no solid evidence presented to warrant the conclusions that Cold-Away is better for health-conscious people or that it is more effective than Coldex. This "argument" reads more like advertising copy written by the Cold-Away company marketing department.


(605 words)

参考译文
[题目]

下述文字摘自某份地方报纸。

"民众不应该被Coldex和Cold-Away这两种药品之间的广告竞赛所误导，这两者均是任何人可在任何商店不需要大夫处方便可直接购买的、时下甚为流行的感冒药。每一种药都指责对方会引起某些众所周知的、令人生厌的副作用：Coldex会使既有的高血压症每况愈下，而Cold-Away则会引起嗜睡症。但是，对于大多数健康意识强烈的人们来说，他们所应作出的选择将是不言而喻的：Cold-Away药进入市场的时间比Coldex远长得多，且在更多的医院推广使用。显而易见，Cold-Away药具有更好的疗效。

[范文正文]
在上述论述中，论述者的结论是，Cold-Away药"显然"是一种更为有效的、不需要大夫的处方便可直接购买的感冒药。为了支持这一结论，该论述者陈述道，Coldex品牌的同类药物会使既有的高血压症每况愈下，而Cold-Away只是引起嗜睡症而已。该论述者进一步陈述道，Cold-Away药更宜于健康意识强的人们，因为它比另一种品牌的药被更多的医院所使用，并且它上市供应的时间要长得多。该项论述含有某些关键性的逻辑谬误，因而无法令人信服。

首先，我们疑惑的是，持如此片面论点的一位作者竟是何许人也！该段论述宣称，每一品牌的药品均"指责"对方会引起众所周知的和令人生厌的副作用，接着陈述说，Coldex会使既有的高血压症每况愈下，而Cold-Away药只会引起嗜睡症状。Coldex不会导致高血压症，而是被说成仅仅是在使某种既有的医疗状况每况愈下。该论述的措辞很有可能会导致一位心不在焉的读者相信，Coldex实际上会导致高血压症，而在绝大多数情况下，这与嗜睡症状相比实乃一种严重得多的副作用。这就引出了这样一种可能性，即本篇论述可能是出自一位Cold-Away制药公司的职员，或是出自一位被Cold-Away制药公司收买的广告文字撰稿人。

其次，论述者陈述道，对于大多数具有极强健康意识的人们来说，选择Cold-Away药不啻是一种"不言而喻"的抉择，因为它上市销售的时间要比Coldex远长得多，并被更多的医院所使用。首先，上市销售的时间更长这一事实就其本身而言并不能表明它必然就是有着较强健康意识的人们所应选择的一种药物。实际的情况是，新上市销售的许多药品，在其研发过程中，其副作用被处理成比另一种药更少，更轻微，但疗效更好。第二，一种药被更多的医院所使用，这可以有无数的原因。它可能是因为较为廉价，这一点对于永远具有强烈成本意识的医疗行业来说殊为重要。Cold-Away公司可能提供了远来得多的免费试用品，因此各大医院可以在不支付任何成本的情况下让病人服用这些药品，从而扩大该药的使用范围。再者，Cold-Away公司可能拥有更好的销售体系，因此仿佛给人一种感觉，好像它的药品更宜于有较强健康意识的人们，故而有较多的公司在使用该药。由于没能探究这些可能性，该论述便无从让我们相信，Cold-Away的药品显然更宜于有着较强健康意识的人们。

此外，该论述者还得出结论说，"显而易见，Cold-Away药具有更好疗效。"但原文中绝对没有列举出任何证据来探讨这样一个问题，即哪一种感冒药疗效更好。确实，该论述者讨论了这两种药品的副作用，并给出了一些（似是而非的）理由来说明Cold-Away药应成为有健康意识的人们的共同选择。但是，即使我们假设原文中的所有论点均真实无疑，该论述也根本没有讨论Coldex与Cold-Away两种药之间何者更为有效。必须再度强调的是，上市销售的时间长短并不能等同于一种药物的有效程度。实际上，极有可能的是，一种药越是新近进入市场，由于其研发技术的提高，其疗效可能会更好（在此情形中，疗效更好的药应属于Coldex）。同样地，如果说Cold-Away药真的比Coldex药被更多的医院采用的话，个中的原因应是疗效之外的其他因素。

总而言之，对原文论点细加体会，便可揭示出，原文作者没有拿出确凿的证据来论证这样的一些结论，即Cold-Away药品更适用于有着较强健康意识的人们，以及其疗效优于Coldex药品。这一"论述"读上去更像是Cold-Away公司的销售部门炮制的一种广告册。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 11:13 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.

A folk remedy* for insomnia, the scent in lavender flowers, has now been proved effective. In a recent study, 30 volunteers with chronic insomnia slept each night for three weeks on lavender-scented pillows in a controlled room where their sleep was monitored. During the first week, volunteers continued to take their usual sleeping medication. They slept soundly but wakened feeling tired. During the second week, the volunteers discontinued their medication. As a result, they slept less soundly than the previous week and felt even more tired. During the third week, the volunteers slept longer and more soundly than in the previous two weeks. This shows that over a short period of time lavender cures insomnia.

(*A folk remedy is usually a plant-based form of treatment common to traditional forms of medicine, ones that developed before the advent of modern medical services and technology.)

This arguer states in his or her argument that a recent study has proven that the scent of lavender flowers is an effective remedy for insomnia. To support this conclusion, the arguer cites the study, which tested thirty volunteers over a three-week period in a controlled room where their sleep was monitored. During the first week, the volunteers continued to take their usual sleeping medications and slept well but awoke feeling tired. For the second week, the medication was discontinued and the volunteers slept less soundly and felt even more tired than before. During the third week, the volunteers slept longer and more soundly than before. This conclusion is based on problematic reasoning and fails to convince on any level.

First of all, the fact that the study took place in a controlled room makes the study's results likely to be different than what would have been found in the volunteers' home environments. For most people, it is difficult, at least at first, to sleep in a new bed in a different place, thus altering the normal patterns of sleeping and ultimately the results of the study. In addition, a study based on the results of only thirty volunteers over just three weeks is hardly a thorough and convincing study of an entire population. This argument is greatly weakened by both of these problems with the study method.

Secondly, the study results showed that for the first week, the subjects slept soundly but wakened feeling tired. This would be expected as medication can force sleep but not the natural type of sleep that is necessary to normally refresh the mind and the body. For the second week, the medication was discontinued with the result being that the volunteers slept less soundly and were even more tired than before. Again, this would be expected as taking away the medication that normally made the volunteers sleepy had interrupted the normal sleep routine. With less sleep, of course the volunteers would feel more tired. For the third week, the study found that the volunteers slept longer and more soundly than they had in the previous two weeks. Rather than attributing this to the lavender scent, the subjects in reality had been tired for the previous two weeks, including one in which they discontinued medication. It would be a natural result for them to sleep well during the third week due to being so tired from the previous two weeks. Additionally, by the third week, the volunteers would be getting familiar with their still relatively new sleeping environment, again helping them to sleep better. With so many possible other causes of better sleep during the third week, it is highly unlikely that the lavender scent had any effect on the volunteers. Because the arguer does not address these other causes, the argument here also fails to convince.

In summary, the arguer has used some unconvincing anecdotal evidence to try to show a direct cause and effect relationship between the scent in lavender flowers and a cure for insomnia. To strengthen the argument, evidence must show a direct causal relationship between the lavender scent and its effect on sleep. The study presented as evidence of such a link does not isolate other possible factors that probably led to better sleep for the volunteers, and as such it does not contribute much to the arguer's improbable conclusion.



(568 words)
参考译文

[题目]

作为一种治疗失眠的民间偏方，熏衣草花卉的花香已被证明有其疗效。在近期的一项研究中，有30名志愿者--他们全都患有长期失眠症--在一间控制室内连续三周每晚都枕着有熏衣草花香的枕头就寝。科研人员对他们的睡眠状况进行了全程监测。第一星期，志愿者们继续服用他们平常服用的安眠药。他们睡得很香，但第二天醒来时感觉疲惫。第二周，志愿者们停止服用安眠药，结果是，他们睡得没有上个星期那么香，并觉得更为疲惫。至第三周，志愿者们睡眠的时间比前两个星期更长，且睡得更香。这表明，在一个较短的时间内，熏衣草已治愈了失眠症。"
（注：所谓偏方常指一种基于植物的治疗形式，为传统医疗形式所普遍采用，它们形成于现代医疗服务和技术出现之前。）

[范文正文]
上述论点的论述者在其论述中陈述道，近期的一项研究已证明，熏衣草花卉的芳香可有效地治愈失眠症。为了支持这一结论，论述者援引了一项研究，该研究对30名志愿者进行了为期三个星期的测验，将受测试者置于一间控制室内，对其睡眠状况进行全程监测。第一周，志愿者们继续服用他们惯常服用的安眠药，睡得很香，但醒来时甚感疲倦。第二周，志愿者们停止用药后，睡得便没有那么香，且感到比以前还要疲倦得多。第三周，志愿者们睡眠的时间较以前长，且睡得香。这一结论基于极成问题的逻辑推理，在任何层面上均无法令人置信。

首先，该项研究是在某一控制室内进行，这一事实就足以使得该项研究的结果可能全然有别于在其家庭环境中进行研究所有可能发现的结果。对于大多数人来说，至少是在初期，是很难在一个全新的环境中的一张全新的床上睡好的，因此，这会改变其正常的睡眠模式，并因而会最终改变研究结果。此外，一项只是基于三十个人为期仅三个星期的研究很难成为一项面向所有人口的全面而有说服力的研究。由于该研究方法中的这二大缺陷，上述论点倍遭削弱。
其次，该项研究的结果表明，第一周内，受试者们睡得很香，但醒来时甚感疲倦。这可以被视作意料之中的事，因为药物可强制人们入睡，但这种睡眠不是一种自然的睡眠，不是用来放松身心的一种正常手段。第二周内，药物的使用被停止，其结果是，志愿者们没能睡得那么香，且感到比以前甚至更疲倦。这又是情理之中的事。因为拿走那些通常会使志愿者们感到困倦的药物会打断其惯常的睡眠习性。由于睡得较少，志愿者们当然会感到更为倦乏。至第三周，该项研究发现，志愿者们的睡眠与以前的二周相比时间变长了，且睡得更香了。我们不应将这一点归诸于熏衣草的芳香。实际上，这是由于受试者们二个星期以来已甚感困倦，其中包括停止服用药物的那个星期。由于在第二周中是如此疲倦，因此，他们在第三周中睡得很香应是顺理成章。此外，至第三周，志愿者们已越来越适应了他们仍然相对陌生的睡眠环境，这一点也可以帮助他们睡得更香。由于第三周中志愿者睡眠状况的改善存在着如许多其他的可然性原因，因此，熏衣草的芳香极不可能对志愿者们产生了任何影响。由于论述者没有涉及这些其他的原因，故所持论点在这里再次无法令人信服。

概而言之，论述者利用某些缺乏说服力的、轶事趣闻性质的证据，试图来证明在熏衣草花香和医治失眠症之间存在着某种直接的因果关系。若要使其论点更具力度，就必须拿出证据来证明熏衣草的芳香和它对失眠的疗效之间有着直接的因果联系。作为这一联系的证据而摆出的该项研究，没能分离出其他某些有可能致使志愿者们改善其睡眠状况的或然性因素。如此看来，该项研究无法起到太大的作用来支持论述者所提出的那种极不可能的结论。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 11:20 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

15.

Typically, as people age, their bone mass decreases, making them more vulnerable to bone fractures. A recent study concludes that the most effective way to reduce the risk of fractures in later life is to take twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium daily. The three-year study followed a group of French women in their eighties who were nursing-home residents. The women were given daily supplements of twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium. In addition, the women participated in a light weightlifting program. After three years, these women showed a much lower rate of hip fractures than is average for their age.

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the most effective way of reducing the risk of bone fractures in later life is to take twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium daily. To support this conclusion, the arguer cites a three-year study of French nursing home resident women in their eighties who were given daily supplements of twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium. In this study, the women also participated in a light weightlifting program and showed a much lower than average rate of hip fractures for their age. Looking closely at the argument reveals that it is based on faulty reasoning and fails to deliver on its premise.

The most obvious and glaring defect in the reasoning behind this argument is the fact that this study was based on French women who were already residents of a nursing home. Nursing homes are very well protected environments, particularly when it comes to the problem of the elderly falling, as this is a well known and common problem. Strict safety precautions are in place to protect nursing home residents from falling, including the widespread use of walkers and wheelchairs, as well as generously and appropriately placed handrails to assist with moving about. The arguer attempts to attribute the much lower rate of hip fractures to the higher doses of vitamin D and calcium, but it is much more likely that the average rate is lower because the residents are better protected from falling and hurting themselves in the first place.

Additionally, the arguer fails to account for the obvious health benefits generated by the light weightlifting program. Weight training helps to strengthen both bone and muscle, leading to a more physically fit body with better balance and stamina. A more fit physique leads to fewer health problems by likely keeping the women from falling in the first place, and if they should fall, better muscle tone and mass could also better protect the underlying bones. It is highly likely that the weight-training program itself led to more health benefits than the double dose of vitamin D and calcium. By failing to address the likely contributions of the light weightlifting program, the arguer has failed to convey a convincing argument.

Furthermore, the study addresses only French people, only women and only those in their eighties. The arguer's conclusion states that "the most effective way to reduce the risk of fractures in later life" is by doubling the daily dose of calcium and vitamin D, meaning all people in later life, including men. The study did not have any male participants, nor did it have anyone under or over the ages of eighty to eighty-nine or from any other countries. Even assuming the validity of the study, there is no direct evidence of the fracture reducing benefits of increasing the dosage of vitamin D and calcium in anyone other than French women in their eighties in nursing homes. Additionally, the study only mentions hip fractures - it does not address any other types of bone fractures. Without such cause and effect evidence for other people and other bones in the body, the argument remains unconvincing.

In summary, the argument fails to convince by offering weak evidence that does not support the arguer's conclusion that the most effective way to reduce the risk of fractures in later life is to take two times the regular dose of vitamin D and calcium everyday. Even assuming that the study does demonstrate that it helps, there is nothing in the argument or the study that shows that it is the most effective way of doing so. Without such direct causal evidence, the study itself does not support the arguer's premise.

(622 words)
参考译文

[题目]

普遍而言，随着人们日趋衰老，他们的骨质会减少，使其更易于招致骨折。一项近期的研究结论是，晚年生活中减少骨折风险的最有效方法是每日服用两倍于大夫建议的维生素D和钙。此项为期三年的研究追踪了一组年届八旬的法国妇女，她们均为私人疗养院居民。这些妇女每天均被给予两倍于大夫建议的维生素D和钙剂量的补充药物。此外，这些妇女还参加了一项轻微的举重计划。三年之后，这些妇女显示出了比其年龄段平均发病率远低得多的臀部骨折。

[范文正文]

在本项论述中，论述者的结论是，晚年生活中减少骨折的最有效方法是每日服用两倍于大夫所建议的维生素D和钙剂量。为了支持其结论，论述者援引了一项为期三年的对法国某私人疗养院年届八旬的女性居民所作的研究。在该项研究中，这些妇女每日被给予两倍于大夫建议的维生素D和钙剂量。这些妇女也参加一项轻微的举重计划，并显示出比其年龄段平均发病率低得多的臀部骨折。对这一论述细加推敲便会表明，它所依据的完全是错误的推理，无法为其命题提供充分的依据。

在该论点所隐含的推理中，最明显和最引人注目的谬误莫进于这样一个事实，即这一研究是基于早已成为某一私人疗养所居民的法国妇女。私人疗养所是一些有着非常完善保护设施的环境，尤其是在涉及到老年人摔倒这方面，因为这是一个众所周知和甚为普遍的问题。严格的安全防范措施十分到位，用以保护私人疗养院居民免遭摔跌之苦，包括广泛使用步行辅助器以及轮椅，以及在各处慷慨而又恰当地设置扶手来帮助行走。该论述者试图将较低水平的臀部骨折归诸于这些居民服用高剂量的维生素D和钙。但是情况很有可能是，疗养院中之所以平均骨折发生率较低，首先是因为这里的居民针对摔倒和受伤已获得了较为完善的防护。

此外，该论述者也没能说清楚轻微的举重计划所产生的明显健康作用。举重训练有助于增强人们的骨骼和肌肉，导致锻炼者身体状况得以改善，获得更好的平衡能力以及耐力。较佳的体质可导致较少的健康问题，因为首先这样的体质可使那些妇女不会随便摔倒，并且，即使她们真的摔倒的话，较好的肌肉张力及肌肉块也可以更好地保护位于下面的骨头。情况很有可能是举重训练计划本身，而不是两倍剂量的维生素D和钙，给女性居民们带来了更多的健康作用。由于没能探讨轻微的举重训练计划有可能带来的裨益，该论述者便没能传递出一个令人信服的论点。

再者，该项研究只涉及法国人，只涉及妇女，并且只涉及年已八旬的妇女。该论述者在结论中陈述道："在人们晚年生活中减少骨折风险的最有效方法"是每日服用两倍的钙与维生素D剂量。这里，论述者指的是进入晚年生活的所有的人，包括男性。该项研究并没有包括男性参与者，也没有包含任何80－89岁这一年龄段之上或之下的任何其他人，或来自任何其他国家的人。即使假定该项研究的有效性，也没有任何直接的论据来证明，除了私人疗养院中的八旬法国妇女外，任何人服用较大剂量的维生素D和钙会有利于减少骨折。此外，该项研究仅仅提及臀部骨折--它没能探讨任何其他类型的骨折。如果没有就其他人或就体内的其它骨头提供因果证据，该论点依然无法令人信服。

概而言之，该论点不能达到说服人的作用，因为所提出的甚为薄弱的证据根本就无法来支持论述者的结论，即人们晚年生活中减少骨折风险的最有效方法是每天服用两倍于正常剂量的维生素D和钙。即使我们假定该项研究确实能证明这一做法有益处，该项论述或研究中还是没有任何证据能证明这一做法是减少骨折的最有效的方法。没有这种直接的因果证据，该项研究无法来支持论述者的命题。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 11:25 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

16.

For the past five years, consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as for Gulf Coast oysters. This trend began shortly after harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. But scientists have now devised a process for killing the bacteria. Once consumers are made aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, they are likely to be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters, and greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers will follow.

In this argument, the arguer states that California consumers have been willing to pay twice as much for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters as for Gulf Coast oysters, and that the trend began shortly after harmful bacteria had been found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. The arguer further states that there is now a process for killing the bacteria and that due to the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, consumers will be willing to pay the same for Gulf Coast and Atlantic Coast oysters, and there will therefore be greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers. At first glance, the argument seems reasonable, but a closer inspection reveals that it is based on faulty logic and it ultimately remains unconvincing.

The first problem with the argument is that it assumes a direct cause and effect relationship between the discovery of the harmful bacteria in the Gulf Coast oysters and the trend of California consumers paying twice as much for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast. There is no such causal relationship demonstrated in this argument. First of all, it could be purely coincidental that the bacteria discovery and the California trend began around the same time. Secondly, it is possible that oysters from the Atlantic Coast are larger or perhaps have a better taste than those from the Gulf Coast. Consumers would therefore be likely to pay more for oysters that were bigger or tasted better. Additionally, there may be a perception of status by eating oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as opposed to the Gulf Coast. Californians are notoriously trendy, and regardless of the quality, they may perceive that eating Atlantic Coast oysters is fashionable whereas eating Gulf Coast oysters is not. The argument is critically weakened by failing to address these additional possible causes for the differences in prices that Californians are willing to pay for oysters.

Once the idea of the finding of the bacteria as the cause of the price difference is called into question, the rest of the argument becomes equally problematic. The arguer assumes that once consumers become aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, they will be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast oysters as for northeastern Atlantic coast oysters. For one thing, consumers may not have been concerned about the safety of the oysters in the first place, thus it is unlikely that they will change their minds about the prices that they are willing to pay for any oysters.

Furthermore, the arguer assumes that greater profits will follow for Gulf Coast oyster producers with the introduction of the new bacteria killing process, at least after consumers have been made aware of the safety of Gulf Coast oysters. It does not follow that there will automatically be greater profits for the Gulf Coast oyster producers. First of all, the bacteria killing process may be more expensive, thus adding to the costs producing oysters. Unless they are able to increase prices with the new process or somehow reduce other costs, it is unlikely that there would be a corresponding rise in profits. Furthermore, the argument states that only California consumers have been willing to pay twice as much for northeastern Atlantic oysters, not consumers in general. It is possible that everywhere else, everyone already pays about the same for both types of oysters, or perhaps even more for Gulf Coast oysters. There would therefore be little or no net gain in profits by introducing the bacteria killing process for Gulf Coast oyster producers.

In summary, this argument ignores several logical possibilities that severely undermine its premise. Without addressing the different possible reasons for the pricing difference other than the finding of harmful bacteria in Gulf Coast oysters, and by the baseless assumption that profits would increase with the increased safety of those oysters, the arguer fails to convince the reader about the accuracy of his conclusion.


(657 words)


参考译文
[题目]

在过去的五年里，加州的消费者宁肯付出墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎一倍的价钱去购买大西洋北海岸的牡蛎。在发现墨西哥湾沿岸几例生牡蛎具有有害细菌后不久，就开始了这种倾向。但是，科学家现在已经发明了杀死这种细菌的方法。一旦使消费者明白墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎已增强的安全性，他们可能会愿意付出与大西洋北海岸牡蛎相同的价格购买墨西哥湾沿岸的牡蛎，随之而来的就是墨西哥湾沿岸的牡蛎生产者更大的利润。



[范文正文]

在这一个论证中，论证者声称加州的消费者宁肯付出墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎两倍的价钱去购买大西洋北岸的牡蛎，而且这一倾向开始于发现墨西哥湾沿岸几例生牡蛎含有有害细菌后不久。论证者继而说道，现在已有了杀死这种细菌的方法，而且由于墨西哥湾已增强的安全性，消费者将会愿意付出同样的价钱购买墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎和大西洋沿岸牡蛎，从而墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎生产者将获得更大的利润。初看起来，论点似乎合情合理。但是，仔细分析就会表明，它的逻辑基础是不正确的，而且它是不能令人信服的。

论证的第一个问题在于它假定发现墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎含有有害细菌与加州消费者愿付一倍的价钱去购买大西洋北海岸牡蛎这一倾向之间的直接的那一因果关系。但是论证中却没有揭示这类的因果关系。首先，发现细菌和加州的那一倾向在同时发生，很可能纯粹是巧合。其次，很可能大西洋海岸的牡蛎比墨西哥湾海岸的牡蛎个儿更大，味儿更鲜。再其次，吃大西洋北海岸的牡蛎而非墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎，很可能表明一种身份感。加州人是赶潮流闻名的，所以且不说质量如何，他们可能觉着吃大西洋海岸的牡蛎是一种时尚，而吃墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎却不时尚。论证因没有说明这些可能造成加州人乐意为吃牡蛎而付出的价格差异的原因而极大地削弱了说服力。

一旦把发现细菌看作价格差别的原因这种观点受到质疑，论证的其余部分就同样地成了问题。论证者假定，一旦消费者清楚了墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎已增强了的安全性，他们将会愿意付出与购买大西洋北海岸牡蛎同样的价钱去购买墨西哥湾海岸的牡蛎。首先，消费者可能根本就没有关心过牡蛎的安全性，因此，他们不太可能改变他们对想买的任何牡蛎所付的价钱的看法。

再者，论证者假定，随着使用新的灭菌方法，至少在消费者清楚了墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎的安全性之后，墨西哥湾海岸牡蛎的生产者将获得更大的利润。事实上，并非会自动地给墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎生产者带来更大的利润。首先，灭菌方法可能更昂贵，从而增加了生产牡蛎的成本。除非他们能够用新方法提高价格或者在一定程度上减少成本，否则就不可能会相应地提高利润。再者，论证声称，只有加州的消费者，并非普通消费者愿意付出一倍的价钱购买大西洋北海岸的牡蛎。可能在其他地方人人都已经付同样的价钱购买这两种牡蛎，甚至为墨西哥湾沿岸的牡蛎付更高的价钱。因而，引进新的灭菌方法并不会给墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎生产者带来多大利润，甚至根本没有利润。

总之，这一论点忽视了几个与其前提严重相悖的逻辑可能性。除了提到墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎的有害细菌外，论证者并没有说明价格差异不同的其它可能原因，而且只凭利润会随着牡蛎的安全性的增强而增长这一毫无根据的假设，他无法让读者信服其结论的正确性。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 15:00 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

17.

The following appeared in a memo from the marketing director of "Bargain Brand" Cereals.

One year ago we introduced our first product, "Bargain Brand" breakfast cereal. Our very low prices quickly drew many customers away from the top-selling cereal companies. Although the companies producing the top brands have since tried to compete with us by lowering their prices, and although several plan to introduce their own budget brands, not once have we needed to raise our prices to continue making a profit. Given our success selling cereal, Bargain Brand should now expand its business and begin marketing other low-priced food products as quickly as possible.

Obviously, the marketing director is enthusiastic about Bargain Brand Cereals' success in selling low-priced breakfast cereal. The marketing director states that over one year, the very low prices of the cereal took many customers away from the top-selling cereal companies and that despite the top brand cereal companies reducing their prices and planning to introduce budget brands, Bargain Brand has never had to raise its prices to continue making a profit. The marketing director then comes to the conclusion that the company should expand the business and start selling other low-priced foods as soon as possible. At first glance, the marketing director would appear to have a good idea, but upon closer inspection one can see that more research should be done before such products are launched in the marketplace.

In the first place, Bargain Brand Cereals' low-priced breakfast cereals have only been on the market for one year - a very short time in terms of analyzing the overall success or failure of a product. With such a short history, it is impossible to evaluate the long-term viability of the product in the marketplace, particularly with respect to the actions and reactions of competitors. The marketing director even mentions in his or her memo that the top brands have already tried to compete by lowering prices. It is likely still too early to tell what effect that will have on the future sales of Bargain Brands cereal. Additionally, the marketing director states that several of the companies producing the top-selling brands plan to introduce their own budget brands, indicating that they have not yet done so. He or she also states that Bargain Brands has never had to raise its prices to continue making a profit. Although that may be true because the competition has not yet fully reacted, the other companies are organizing a direct attack on the Bargain Brands cereal - companies which likely have tremendous funds available for launching these new bargain products, possibly even selling them at or below cost to try to drive Bargain Brands cereal out of the market. Faced with these current and upcoming battles, the marketing director's conclusion that they should launch other low-priced food products as quickly as possible might be foolish rather than wise. The company may need to save its funds to try to survive in their current market rather than extending itself out into more fields of competition.

Secondly, the marketing director assumes that low prices are what attracted consumers to Bargain Brands cereal. It is possible that it was not price that attracted customers - rather the package, promotion or the fact that the other cereals were not as good as Bargain Brands cereal. The company may have some special advantage with its cereal that others do not have - and that it cannot duplicate in any other types of foods. Success in selling low-priced cereal does not indicate the chances for success with other low-priced foods. Indeed, there may be some industry-specific factors in cereal marketing that have allowed Bargain Brands to succeed in the short-term. Bargain Brands may have some special expertise with cereal that they cannot duplicate with other types of food products. The marketing director presents no direct evidence or market research to indicate that Bargain Brands can successfully expand its business into other food areas. Without such information, the marketing director's argument is unconvincing.



In summary, without detailed market research showing the true reason why Bargain Brands cereal has been successful, without knowing the likelihood of its continued success, and without showing how it can translate that success to other areas, the marketing director's argument is based on speculation and faulty logic. To strengthen his or her argument, market research should be conducted to determine how the marketplace is reacting to the competition's strategies in the cereal market, and whether there is a demand in any other particular areas for low-priced food products. Additionally, the marketing director must show that Bargain Brands has some type of competitive advantage that it can successfully apply to its strategies in the low-priced food product market.



(683 words)

参考译文
[题目]


下文出自"特价谷类食品"公司销售部经理的备忘录：

一年前，我们推出了我们的第一个产品："特价谷类食品"早餐系列。我们非常低的价位很快就从销量最好的食品公司吸引了众多顾客。尽管那些生产优质食品的公司继而降低产品价格试图与我们竞争，而且有几次计划推广他们自己的廉价产品，但是我们从未需要靠提高价格来维持赢利。考虑到我们销售食品的成功，"特价谷类食品"公司现在应该扩大它的业务，开始尽快地把其他低价食品推向市场。

[范文正文]

显然，销售部经理对"特价谷类食品"公司成功地销售低价位早餐系列极富热情。销售部经理说，仅仅一年多，非常低廉的食品就把销量最好的公司的顾客吸引过来，而且尽管优质食品公司降低价格并计划推出廉价产品，"特价谷类食品"公司却没有提高价格来维持赢利。销售部经理接着得出结论，公司应该扩大生产业务并开始尽早把其它低价食品推向市场。乍看起来，销售部经理似乎出了一个好主意，但仔细推敲我们就能发现，在这类产品推向市场之前应该做更多的调查研究。

首先，"特价谷类食品"公司推出的低价早餐系列仅投放市场一年--时间太短不足以分析一种产品的完全成功或失败。在这样短的时间内，不可能评价产品在市场上的长期发展，尤其针对竞争者的行动和反应更是如此。销售部经理在其备忘录中提到，优质产品已经试图通过降低价格与其竞争。断言对"特价谷类食品"未来将有什么影响现在尚为时过早。此外，销售部经理声称，几家生产销量优质产品的公司已经计划推出他们自己的廉价产品，暗示他们尚未做。他/她还说，"特价谷类食品"从未提高价格以维持赢利。虽然他/她的说明可能是真的，因为竞争尚未完全展开，但是其他公司已在组织对"特价谷类食品"的反击，而且这些公司很可能拥有巨额资金来推出这些廉价产品，甚至以成本价或低于成本价销售他们的产品以便把"特价谷类食品"挤出市场。面对这些目前的及即将出现的战斗，销售部经理的结论--他们应该尽快地把其他低价食品推向市场--与其说是明智的不如说是愚蠢的。公司需要积蓄资金以便在目前的市场上生存，而不是扩展到其他竞争领域。

第二，销售部经理假定价格低是吸引顾客购买"特价谷类食品"系列的因素。可能并非是价格吸引了顾客--而是包装、促销或因为其他种类的谷类食品不如"特价谷类食品"的好。公司的产品可能具有其他公司的产品所没有的某种特殊长处--而这个长处是在其他种类食品中不能仿效的。低价谷类食品的销售成果，并不意味着其他低价食品也有成功的机会。的确，可能是因为某些企业占有市场的因素使"低价谷类食品"在短期内获得了成功。"特价谷类食品"公司可能有一些专门技巧，而这些技巧是可能不能在其他种类食品中复制的。销售部经理没有提供直接证据或市场调查证明"特价谷类食品"公司可能成功地把其业务扩展到其他食品领域。没有这类的资料，销售部经理的论点是不能令人信服的。

总之，没有提供详细的市场调查来证明"特价谷类食品"成功的真正原因。不了解其继续成功的可能性，也没有说明它如何把成功移植到其他领域，只能说销售部经理的论点是基于空想和错误的逻辑。为了加强他/她的论点，应该进行市场调查以便确定市场对食品销售的竞争战略是如何反应的。此外，销售部经理必须说明"特价谷类食品"公司具有某种竞争优势足以使其成功地将其战略应用于廉价食品市场。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 16:08 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

18.
The following recommendation was made by the president and administrative staff of Grove College, a private institution, to the college's governing committee.

"We recommend that Grove College preserve its century-old tradition of all-female education rather than admit men into its programs. It is true that a majority of faculty members voted in favor of coeducation, arguing that it would encourage more students to apply to Grove. But eighty percent of the students responding to a survey conducted by the student government wanted the school to remain all female, and over half of the alumni who answered a separate survey also opposed coeducation. Keeping the college all-female, therefore, will improve morale among students and convince alumni to keep supporting the college financially."

This argument discusses the proposition whether a century-old, all-female college should change its admissions policy and allow men to enter into its programs. Although a majority of the faculty members voted in favor of the change for coeducation, the president and administrative staff note that eighty percent of the students that responded to a survey conducted by the student government wanted the school to remain all female as did over half of the alumni who answered a separate survey. The arguers then state that keeping the college all female will therefore improve morale among students and convince the alumni to continue supporting the college financially. This argument is unconvincing due to several critical flaws.

First of all, the main support that the president and administrative staff rely on is the two surveys conducted by the student government of the current students and alumni. It is possible that the survey itself was flawed, perhaps asking leading questions that subliminally led the respondents to answer in favor of keeping the current all female admissions policy. However, even assuming that the survey was neutrally worded, it remains problematic to rely on it as evidence that there is widespread support for continuing as an all-female college. Firstly, the people that actually take the time to respond to surveys usually have a strong opinion one way or the other. In this case, it is likely that those that feel that the tradition of the school is being threatened by the possibility of admitting men to the college are the ones who would respond to the survey. Those that have a neutral opinion, or that would actually like to see the college opened to men, may not have a strong enough opinion to take the time to respond to the survey. The total number of surveys conducted by the student government is not mentioned in the argument. It is possible that very few people actually responded to the survey, which would indicate that most students actually don't care one way or the other. Similarly, with the alumni survey, the arguers only mention those who answered the survey, but don't mention how many total surveys there were or how many people did not answer the survey. For these reasons, the argument is not well supported by the surveys.

Secondly, by surveying only current students and alumni, the pool of those sampled is limited to those who previously accepted the all-female admissions policy of the school and thus are much more likely to support its continuance. Current students and alumni applied to and attended the school with its current policy in place, thereby prejudicing their own opinions as to what is best for the school. Additionally, with the survey limited to only current students and alumni, the student government did not poll those whose opinion matters the most - potential students. A college cannot survive based on its past successes - it is the future that will determine the long-term viability of the college and potential students are the most important part of that future. It is much more important to determine how many students would attend the college if the policy were changed. Furthermore, the arguers ignore the opinion of a vital part of the college, that of the majority of its faculty members who probably have a better overall view of the situation than students or alumni.

Finally, there is no evidence presented to show that keeping the college all female will improve morale among the students or keep the alumni donations coming in. This statement has no causal relationship demonstrated in the argument, whether the results of the survey are accurate or not. Had the question been asked in the survey- whether keeping the admissions policy the same would improve students' morale and keep alumni financial support intact - there may have at least been some basis for this statement, but without it the statement is groundless.

In summary, the argument is based on only two surveys of a limited sample of people with a built-in bias towards keeping the status quo. Without further evidence and a more fairly distributed survey, the argument ultimately fails to deliver on its premise.

(697 words)

参考译文
[题目]

下面的建议是格罗夫学院--一个私有机构--院长和管理人员写给学院和管理委员会的。

"我们建议，格罗夫学院坚持其具有百年传统的全女生教育，不接受男生入学。的确，大多数教师表决赞成男女同校，说这样可以鼓励更多的学生申请就读于格罗夫学院。但是，由学生管理机构进行的调查表明，百分之八十的学生希望学校坚持全女生教育，而且在另一个单独的调查中，过半的校友反对男女同校。因此，保持学院全女生教育，会在学生中振奋精神面貌，并确使校友继续从财力上支持学院。"

[范文正文]
这一论点讨论的命题是，一所具有百年历史的全女生学院是否应该改变其招生政策，允许男生就读该校。尽管教师中大多数表决赞成改为男女同校，但是院长和管理人员注意到在学生管理机构进行的调查中，百分之八十的学生希望学校继续保持全女生教育，在另一个分别进行的调查中有过半的校友亦复如此。该论点进一步指出，保持学院全女生教育因而会在学生中振奋士气并确使校友继续从财力上支持该学院。这一论点因为几处重要的缺陷而显得不能令人信服。

首先，院长及管理人员所依赖的主要佐证论点是由学生管理机构所进行的在校生和校友的调查。很可能调查自身是有缺陷的。或许所问的主要问题都下意识地引导调查对象的回答有利于维持现行的全女生入学政策。但是，即使假设调查所使用的语言是中性的，依赖它来证明对维持一所全女生学院的广泛支持仍然是有问题的。首先，实际上对调查作出回应的人们常常具有三种倾向性。这样，很有可能那些认为学校的传统正在受到招收男学生的可能性威胁的人会积极参与调查。那些具有中立观点的人，甚至那些实际上愿意看到学校向男生开放的人，可能没有强烈愿望花时间去认真对待调查。学生管理机构所进行的调查人数，在论证过程中没有提及。可能只有极少数人对调查作了回答，这表明大多数学生实际上不关心只收女生还是男女同校。同样在校友调查中，论证者在提到那些对调查作出回应的人，却并没有提到受调查的总人数以及多少人没有对调查作出回应。因此，论点并没有得到调查的有力支持。

其次，只是对在校生和校友进行调查，取样范围仅限于那些以前接受学校全女生招生政策的人，因此他们更可能支持继续这种作法。在校生和校友都是在现政策实施时申请入学和上学的，因而他们对于学校怎样才好抱有偏见。此外，因为调查仅限于在校生和校友，学生管理机构没有对那些潜在的学生进行民意测验，而他们的观点才是最重要的。一所大学不能靠过去的成功生存，而未来才决定学校的长期活力，潜在学生是未来最重要的组成部分。更为重要的是确定在政策改变之后有多少学生将会上学。再者，论证者忽视了学校里关键成份的意见--那些很可能比学生和校友对全局具有更正确看法的大多数教师的意见。

最后，论证中并没有提供证据来证明保持全女生学院会振奋学生的士气或确保校友的捐助。无论调查的结果准确与否，这一说法与论点都缺乏因果关系。倘若调查中包含有这样的问题--保持原有的招生政策是否会振奋学生的士气并维持校友财力上的支持--那么这种说法还有点依据。但是并没有提出这样的问题，所以这一结论是毫无根据的。

总之，论点只是基于两个抽样有限的调查，而且具有保持现状的内在偏见。在没有进一步的调查以及一个分布更合理的调查情况下，论证完全没有为其命题提供充分的依据。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 16:42 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19.
Topic

The following appeared in a letter to the school board in the town of Centerville.

"All students should be required to take the driver's education course at Centerville High School. In the past two years several accidents in and around Centerville have involved teenage drivers. Since a number of parents in Centerville have complained that they are too busy to teach their teenagers to drive, some other instruction is necessary to ensure that these teenagers are safe drivers. Although there are two driving schools in Centerville, parents on a tight budget cannot afford to pay for driving instruction. Therefore an effective and mandatory program sponsored by the high school is the only solution to this serious problem."

Sample Essay
In this argument, the writer argues that all students should be required to take the driver's education course at Centerville High School. The writer's reasoning is based on several accidents in and around Centerville over the past two years that involved teenage drivers, and that parents have complained that they are too busy to teach their own teenagers to drive. The writer also states that although there are two driving schools in Centerville, some parents cannot afford to pay for driving instruction. The writer's argument is based on faulty logic and suffers from several critical flaws.

In the first place, the writer cites several accidents over the past two years in and around Centerville involving teenagers as evidence that they should be required to take a driver's education course at the high school. The writer assumes that these accidents were caused by the teenagers' lack of driver's education, which may or may not be the case. There is no evidence presented that directly shows a causal link between the teenagers' lack of driver's education and the cause of the accidents. It is entirely possible that these teenagers had already had the driver's education courses, and that the accidents were simply unavoidable or even the other driver's fault. Without further direct causal evidence, the writer's argument fails to convince that all teenagers should be required to take the driver's education course.

Secondly, the writer produces no evidence that shows a direct link between the driver's education course at Centerville High School and the prevention of accidents involving teenage drivers. The writer assumes such a causal linkage but delivers nothing other than his or her personal opinion as evidence that the driver's education course helps prevent accidents. Furthermore, the writer states that all students should be required to take the driver's education course. The writer fails to take into consideration students that do not drive, as well as students that may have already taken a driver's education course elsewhere. Even assuming the value of the high school's driver's education course, there will obviously be no reduction in teenagers' accidents if the students do not drive in the first place. Additionally, it is doubtful that repeating the driver's education course will result in any further reduction in accidents involving teenagers. For these reasons, the writer's argument again falls short of convincing the reader of the value of mandatory high school driver's education.

Finally, the writer states that an effective and mandatory driver's education program sponsored by the high school is the only solution to this serious problem. Again, the writer falsely assumes that the only cause of such accidents is the lack of teenagers' driver's education, for which there is no support whatsoever in the argument. A better course of action would be to determine the true cause of such accidents, then tailor a solution to address the specific causes of the problem, rather than imposing a mandatory driver's education program on all students. Perhaps mandatory driver's education for all drivers would be a better solution, but there is no basis present in the argument on which to single out students and their lack of driver's education as the source of the problem of accidents in Centerville.

In summary, the writer's argument looks logical at first glance, but a closer inspection reveals that it is based on faulty logic. There is no evidence presented that a lack of driver's education for students is the cause of the problem in Centerville; therefore there is no basis for forcing all students to take the program. To strengthen the argument, the writer should show a direct correlation between the automobile accidents and a lack of driver's education among Centerville High School students. Without such evidence, the argument is groundless.

(632 words)

参考译文
[题目]

下文出自一封致森特维尔镇学校董事会的信函：

"所有在森特维尔高中就读的学生，都要求修司机教育课程。在过去的两年里，在森特维尔镇内或周围所发生的几起事故，都是十多岁的青少年司机。由于森特维尔的一些父母抱怨说，他们太忙不能教他们十几岁的孩子开车，因此其它某个机构就有必要采取措施保证这些十几岁的司机是安全的。尽管在林特维尔有两所司机学校，但是经济拮据的父母付不起学习开车的费用，因此，我们高中开设一门有效的且必修的课程，是解决该严重问题的唯一办法。"

[范文正文]

在这一论点中，作者声称所有在森特维尔高中就读的学生都应该修司机教育课程。作者推理的基础是，在森特维尔镇内和周围过去两年多十几岁司机所发生的事故，以及父母抱怨说他们太忙而没有时间教他们十几岁的孩子开车。作者还提到，尽管森特维尔镇有两所司机学校，但有些父母付不起学开车的费用。作者的论点是建立在错误的逻辑基础上的，而且有几处关键的问题。

首先，作者引用过去的两年里在森特维尔镇及其周围地区十几岁司机所发生的几起事故作为要求他们在高中修司机教育课程的根据。作者假定，这些事故是因为十几岁的青少年缺乏司机教育而导致的。这可能是也可能不是真正的原因。论证过程中并没有提供证据表明十几岁的青少年缺乏司机教育与事故原因之间的因果关系。极有可能这些十几岁的青年已经修了司机教育课程，而事故完全是不可避免的，或者完全是其他司机的责任。由于没有进一步直接的因果关系，作者的论点不能被人相信所有十几岁的青少年都必须修司机教育课程。

其次，作者没有提供证据表明森特维尔中学开设司机教育课程与防止十几岁的司机发生事故的直接联系。作者假定了这样一种因果关系，并且仅仅用他/她自己的观点来证明司机教育课程有助于防止事故。再者，作者说道，所有的学生应该修司机教育课程。作者没有考虑到那些不开车的学生以及那些在其他地方已经修过司机课程的学生。甚至，仅仅开设高中司机教育课程，并不会明显地减少十几岁司机的事故，倘若学生根本就不开车。加之，令人怀疑的是，重申司机教育课程将能进一步减少十几岁司机的事故。由以上理由可见，作者的论证再次没能使读者相信在高中开设司机教育必修课的价值。 最后，作者声称，在高中开设有效的、必修的司机教育课程，是唯一解决这一严重问题的方法。这里，作者又错误地假定事故的原因是缺乏十几岁司机的教育课程，但他/她并没有在论证中提供任何证据。一个更值得采取的行动是确定此类事故的真正原因，然后制定一个解决方法以处理该问题的具体原因，而不是给所有学生强加一门司机教育必修课。或许，所有司机必须接受司机训练将是一个更好的方法，但是在论证中没有任何的依据使我们得以确认学生及其司机教育的缺乏是森特维尔镇交通事故的原因。

总之，作者的论证乍看起来似乎合乎逻辑，但仔细审视就会发现，它基于错误的逻辑推理。它没有提供证据证明学生缺乏司机教育课程是森特维尔镇事故的原因；因此没有理由强迫所有学生修学该课程。若要使该论证更具力度，作者应该提供汽车事故与森特维尔镇高中缺乏司机教育之间的直接联系。没有这样的证据，论证成为无根之木、无源之水。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 16:55 编辑 ]

lin_nemoUID：2112876

老大你到底要干什么

lin_nemoUID：2112876

原帖由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-18 10:02 发表

学不进去的时候，在这里发帖，一边发帖，同步写提纲。提醒自己集中注意力

厉害啊.