（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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20.
The following appeared in the annual report from the president of the National Brush Company.

"In order to save money, we at the National Brush Company have decided to pay our employees for each brush they produce instead of for the time they spend producing brushes. We believe that this policy will lead to the production of more and better brushes, will allow us to reduce our staff size, and will enable the company factories to operate for fewer hours---resulting in savings on electricity and security costs. These changes will ensure that the best workers keep their jobs and that the company will earn a profit in the coming year."

In this argument, the president of the National Brush Company states that the company has decided to pay employees for each brush that they produce rather than for the time that they spend producing the brushes. The president states that this will lead to the production of more and better brushes, allowing the company to reduce its staff size and save money on electricity and security costs by operating the factories for fewer hours. The president also states that the changes will allow the company to keep the best workers and ensure a profit for the company in the coming year. In theory, the president's idea sounds good, but a closer examination reveals that his or her conclusions are based on nothing more than guesswork, not hard facts.

There is not really any argument here; the president merely states conclusions with no basis in fact. First of all, the president states that by paying employees by the brush produced, rather than for the time spent at work, the company will get better brushes in greater quantity. On the contrary, it is likely that paying employees by the brush will lead to lower quality rather than better quality brushes. The incentive will be for employees to produce as many brushes as they possibly can, thus they will try to work as fast as they can with little regard for quality. Although there will likely be an increase in the quantity of the brushes produced, it is likely that they will be of lower quality as the employees race to produce as many as possible. Without some type of quality control mechanism, the president's conclusion that there will be more, higher quality brushes is likely based on wishful thinking rather than fact.

Secondly, the president refers to saving money by reducing staff size and operating the factories for fewer hours. This does not follow any type of logical reasoning, certainly none that is present in the president's annual report. There is no evidence presented on which to base the assumption that there can be a reduction in staff. Additionally, employees will expect to work the same number of hours so that they may produce as many brushes as possible to maximize their incomes. It does not follow that there will be savings from staff reductions or from operating the factories fewer hours. Indeed, it is likely that the employees will be motivated to work longer hours to produce even more brushes, thus leading to increased rather than decreased factory hours. Furthermore, unless the company establishes a production ceiling for the number of brushes produced, there will likely be no savings in electricity or security costs as the factories will continue to stay open at least the same, if not more, hours than before the change.

Finally, the president states that the changes in policy will ensure that the "best" workers keep their jobs, and that the company will earn a profit in the coming year. Once again, these are baseless conclusions. Which workers will the company consider to be the best: those that produce the most brushes or those that produce the highest quality brushes? It would be dangerous to conclude that the best workers are those that produce the highest number of brushes, as a purely numerical merit system does not take quality into consideration. Such a system might actually lead to the dismissal of the best workers while keeping those whose only quality is that of speed, not of craftsmanship. Furthermore, there is no guarantee of profits for the company in the coming year with this new policy. Should the "pay by the brush" policy encourage employees to speed up production while sacrificing quality, it is likely that the company would lose sales and therefore profits. There is no evidence presented in the argument to back up the conclusion that the best workers will stay and profitability will be ensured.

To summarize, there is no evidence presented by the president that the plan will lead to the specified conclusions. Without further factual evidence that the plan will perform as advertised, the president appears to be engaging in wishful thinking rather than rational planning.



(699 words)
参考译文
[题目]

下文摘自国家制刷公司总裁的年度报告。

"为了省钱，我们国家制刷公司决定按每位雇员制刷数量计付工资，而不是按他们制刷所花的时间付酬。我们相信，这一政策将致使生产更多、更好的刷子，将使我们缩减工作人员，并将使公司的工厂工作时间缩减，其结果是节省用电和安全费用。这些变化，将会保证那些最优秀的工人继续有工作，公司在来年将获得利润。"

[范文正文]
在这一论证中，国家制刷公司的总裁声称，公司决定按每位雇员制刷数量计付工资，而不是按他们制刷所花的时间付酬。总裁声称，这将致使生产更多更好的刷子，因工厂工作时间减少而裁减工作人员，节省电力和安全开支。总裁还说，这些变化将使公司拥有最优秀的工人并保证公司在来年赢利。理论上，总裁的说法听起来很好。但仔细审视，我们会发现，他/她的结论完全基于猜测，而非令人信服的事实。

其实，这位总裁根本没有进行论证。他/她仅仅提出了没有事实根据的结论而已。首先，总裁声称，以制刷数量计付雇员工资而不是按工作时间付酬，公司将生产更多更好的刷子。相反，很可能计件付酬这一做法将导致低质量的而非高质量的刷子。这一刺激方式将促使雇员努力生产更多的刷子，因而他们会尽快地工作而忽视质量。虽然很可能在制刷数量上会有增加，但是由于雇员竞相制造更多的刷子，很可能会致使质量降低。在没有质量控制机制的情况下，总裁所谓将生产更多更好的刷子这一结论很可能是基于良好的愿望，而不是事实。

第二，总裁谈到减少工作人员和减少工厂工作时间可以省钱。这一点也不符合任何形式的逻辑推理，更与总裁年度报告内容无关。没有证据证明有必要裁减工作人员。此外，雇员会希望工作同样的时间，以便尽可能多地制造刷子，最大限度地增加收入。所以裁减工作人员和缩短工厂工作时间并不会省钱。的确，很可能雇员将被迫工作更长的时间来生产更多的刷子，其结果是增加而不是减少工厂工作时间。进而言之，除非公司确定一个制刷数量的最高限度，否则将不会在电力上有任何节约，也不会在安全费用上有任何节约，因为工厂将比变革前工作更长的时间，至少也是与变革前同样的时间。

最后，总裁声称，政策的变革将会确保"最优秀"的工人继续拥有他们的工作，而且公司在来年将获利。又一次，这些都是毫无根据的结论。什么样的工人是公司认为最优秀的呢？生产最多刷子的工人呢，还是生产质量最好的刷子的工人呢？说最优秀的工人是那些制刷数量最多的，这将是非常危险的，因为纯粹的数字评估体制没有把质量考虑进去。这样的体制实际上会导致最优秀的工人遭淘汰而保留那些以速度为要素而不是以工艺为要素的工人。再者，实施这一新政策并不能保证公司在来年获利。如果"计件工资制"的政策鼓励雇员提高生产速度但牺牲质量，那么很可能公司将蒙受销售损失从而也蒙受利润损失。论证过程中并没有提供证据来支持最优秀的工人将被留在公司以及利润将获得保证这一结论。

总之，总裁并没有提供证据来证明这一计划将产生他/她所标榜的那些结果。因为没有进一步的证据来证明计划将会按所宣传的那样得到实施，所以总裁显得在做一厢情愿的揣测，而不是在进行理性的推论。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 17:01 编辑 ]

lin_nemoUID：2112876

老大今天怎么出来这个了。

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

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

21.
The following is a recommendation from the personnel director to the president of Acme Publishing Company.

"Many other companies have recently stated that having their employees take the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course has greatly improved productivity. One graduate of the course was able to read a five-hundred-page report in only two hours; another graduate rose from an assistant manager to vice president of the company in under a year. Obviously, the faster you can read, the more information you can absorb in a single workday. Moreover, Easy Read costs only $500 per employee---a small price to pay when you consider the benefits to Acme. Included in this fee is a three-week seminar in Spruce City and a lifelong subscription to the Easy Read newsletter. Clearly, Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all of our employees to take the Easy Read course."

In this argument, the personnel director has recommended to the president of Acme Publishing Company that all employees take a speed-reading course because other companies have reported that having their employees take the course has greatly improved their productivity. Additionally, the personnel director claims that one course graduate read a five-hundred page report in two hours while another course graduate was promoted from assistant manager to vice president in less than one year. He or she also states that the faster that one can read, the more information that one can absorb in one workday. This argument is based on problematic reasoning and it does not follow that the course will automatically bring the same results to Acme Publishing.

First of all, the personnel director claims that other companies have stated that having their employees take the speed-reading course has greatly improved their productivity. Even if this is true, it does not automatically mean that Acme would receive the same benefits from such employee training. It is possible that the speed-reading course is especially suitable for the employees of these other companies whereas it may be unhelpful for Acme employees. Different types of work can receive different types of benefits from such training, and it does not necessarily mean that Acme would benefit from this particular speed-reading course as well.

Secondly, the personnel director cites the examples of one course graduate who was able to read a five-hundred page report in two hours and one who was promoted from assistant manager to vice president in less than one year. In the first instance, simply reading a five hundred-page report in such a short time does not mean that the employee was actually able to comprehend the entire report. The personnel director states that the faster you can read, the more information you can absorb in a workday, but reading and comprehending are two different things entirely. In the second instance, there were likely other factors that contributed to the employee's movement from assistant manager to vice president, simply having taken the speed-reading course does not allow one to move up through the ranks so quickly. Without further evidence directly correlating the taking of the speed-reading course with the reading and comprehension of a five hundred-page report and with moving up quickly to the position of vice president, the argument fails to convince that the speed-reading course is in any way responsible for these events.

Thirdly, the personnel director says that the $500 per employee fee for the course is a small price to pay compared to the benefits that will accrue to Acme. There are some possible personal benefits cited in the argument, but no overall company benefits for Acme are identified. Here the personnel director attempts to draw a line between having all the employees take the speed-reading course and the benefits that Acme will receive, but there are no direct benefits listed for Acme. Other than a personal opinion statement, there is no evidence that Acme will benefit from having its employees take the course.

In summary, some anecdotal evidence is cited but there is no direct causal link demonstrated between the taking of the speed-reading course and any benefits for Acme or its employees. To strengthen the argument, the personnel director should show a cause and effect relationship between the skills that would be developed in the course and the benefits for both the employees and Acme Publishing Company. Without such support, the argument is stating a simple personal opinion.


(589 words)
参考译文
[题目]

下文是人事部主任给阿克默出版公司总裁的建议信。
"其他许多公司最近声称，让雇员参加简易阅读快速阅读课程使他们大大地提高了工作效率。有一位本课程结业者可以在两小时内阅读一篇500页的报告；另一位结业者在不到一年内从经理助理晋升为公司副总裁。显然，一个人阅读得越快，他/她在一个工作日内所获取的信息量也越多。而且，简易阅读课程仅花费每位雇员500美元--一旦考虑到它会给阿克默公司带来的利润，这仅是一项微不足道的开支。包含在该费用内的尚有在Spruce城举行的三周研讨会以及终生赠阅的简易阅读快报。很清楚，阿克默公司如果要求其所有雇员参加简易阅读课程班学习，将会获益匪浅。"

[范文正文]
在这段论证当中，人事部主任给阿克默出版公司总裁建议：公司全部雇员应参加一个快速阅读课程班的学习，其原因是其他公司声称让它们的雇员参加该课程学习已极大地改进了工作效率。此外，人事部主任还说，有一位该课程的结业者能在两小时内阅读500页的报告，而另一位则在不到一年的时间内从经理助理晋升为公司副总裁。他/她还声称，一个人阅读得越快，在一个工作日内所能获取的信息量就越多。这一论证基于错误的推理，而且它不能证明该课程会自然而然地给阿克默出版公司带来同样的效果。

首先，人事部主任说到，其他公司声称让它们的雇员参加这个快速阅读课程的学习已经大大地提高了工作效率。即便果真如此，这并不意味着阿克默公司会自然而然地从这类员工培训中获得同样的效益。很可能这一快速阅读课程仅仅适合于其他公司的雇员而对阿克默公司却无济于事。从这类培训中，不同类别的工作得到不同的效益，但这并不必然意味着阿克默公司也会从这一类专门的快速阅读课程中受益。

其次，人事部主任举例说，该课程的一位结业者能够在两小时内阅读一篇500页的报告而另一位结业者在一年内已经从经理助理升职至公司副总裁。在第一例中，在这么短的时间内阅读一篇500页的报告并不意味着这位雇员能够完全理解这篇报告。人事部主任声称，在一个工作日中你读得越快，你获得的信息就越多。然而，阅读和理解是完全不同的两码事。在第二例中，很可能有其他的因素有助于这位经理助理晋升为公司副总裁，单单参加快速阅读课程班学习并不会使人如此快地在获得职位晋升。因为这段论证没有提供进一步的证据来直接说明参加快速阅读课程与两小时内阅读和理解一篇500页的报告以及很快升到公司副总裁一职有关，所以它不能使人确信快速阅读课程与这些事件有何关系。

第三，人事主任声称与阿克默公司将获得的效益相比，每位雇员500美元的学费只是一笔微不足道的花费。在论证中，引用了某些有可能产生的个人利益，但没有指明任何对阿克默公司总体上有益的证据。这里，人事部主任试图在让全部雇员参加快速阅读培训与阿克默公司将获得的利益之间划出一条分界线，但他却没有列举出对阿克默公司的直接利益为何。除了作为一个个人观点的陈述之外，这段论证并没有提供任何证据表明让其雇员参加快速阅读培训将会给阿克默公司带来益处。

总之，论证过程中引用了某些轶事趣闻式的证据，但它并没有说明参加快速阅读课程班与阿克默公司的利益或其雇员之间有任何因果关系。为了使他/她的论点更为有力，人事部主任应该说明，在该培训班所能帮助形成的技能与阿克默出版公司及其雇员的利益之间存在着因果关系。因为没有这一论点支持，这段论证仅仅是在陈述个人的观点。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 17:12 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

原帖由 lin_nemo 于 2006-2-21 17:01 发表
老大今天怎么出来这个了。

因为
1 我同时作两件事情的时候效率最高。
2 我想看看自己的极限在那里

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22.
From a letter to the editor of a city newspaper.

"One recent research study has indicated that many adolescents need more sleep than they are getting, and another study has shown that many high school students in our city are actually dissatisfied with their own academic performance. As a way of combating these problems, the high schools in our city should begin classes at 8:30 A.M. instead of 7:30 A.M., and end the school day an hour later. This arrangement will give students an extra hour of sleep in the morning, thereby making them more alert and more productive. Consequently, the students will perform better on tests and other assignments, and their academic skills will improve significantly."

In this argument, the letter writer argues that the high schools in his or her city should begin classes at 8:30 a.m. rather than 7:30 a.m. and end the school day an hour later. The writer cites as reasons two separate studies: one indicating that adolescents need more sleep than they have been getting and the other showing that many high school students in this city are dissatisfied with their academic performance. The writer further argues that starting classes an hour earlier will make students more alert and productive, thus leading to better performance on tests and other assignments with a significant improvement in academic skills. The argument sounds good, but it is based on problematic reasoning and is therefore unconvincing.

First of all, the writer is combining two separate and unrelated research studies to arrive at his or her conclusion. There is no correlation demonstrated between the two studies. The writer simply assumes the relationship between the two studies for the sake of his or her argument without any evidence that the two are in fact related.

Furthermore, the writer states that many high school students are dissatisfied with their own academic performance. The writer does not state the number of students that are actually dissatisfied - how many is "many"? It is only natural that unless the students are at the top of their classes and receiving perfect marks, they will be dissatisfied with their academic performance. Citing this rather vague idea of dissatisfaction with academic performance does not advance the writer's argument.

Additionally, by beginning classes an hour later, it may give the students an extra hour of sleep but it does not automatically mean that they will be more alert or productive. As just one example, the students may stay up an hour later at night and be just as tired and non-alert as they were when classes began at 7:30 a.m. Even assuming that the students would be more alert and productive during the day, this does not necessarily equate to better performance on tests or other assignments or any significant improvement in academic skills. It takes more work on the students' part than just being more alert and productive - they must study harder to improve academic performance. Starting the school day one hour later does not necessarily transform poorly performing students into brilliantly performing ones.

In summary, the writer's argument is based on faulty logic. Simply starting the school day one hour later does not mean that the students will do better on their exams and assignments or become more skilled academically. To strengthen the argument, the writer should provide evidence that the two studies are related, and that an extra hour of sleep in the morning would actually benefit the students in their studies. Without such proof, the writer is attempting to apply to separate and unrelated studies to the student's situation. The result is an unpersuasive argument, because it simply does not follow that beginning classes at 8:30 a.m. rather than 7:30 a.m. will make students more alert and productive. Even assuming that they would be more alert and productive, it again does not necessarily indicate that they would do better on tests and assignments, nor that they would significantly improve their academic skills.

(545 words)

参考译文
[题目]
下述文字摘自一封致某家市报的信函：

"最近一项调查研究表明，许多青少年需要得到比他们现在更多的睡眠；另一项调查表明，我市许多高中生实际上对他们自己的学业并不满意。作为解决这些问题的方法，我市高中应该在上午8:30开始上课，晚一个小时放学。这一安排将在早晨给学生提供多一个小时的睡眠，从而使他们更精力充沛、学习更加有效。这样，学生将在考试和其他作业上表现得更好，他们的学业将会极大地改观。"

[范文正文]
在这段论证中，信函作者说到，其市的高中应该在上午8:30而非7:30开始上课并推迟一小时放学。作者引用两个不相关的调查作为理由：一个调查表明青少年需要比他们实际睡眠时间更多的睡眠，另一项调查显示该市的许多高中生对他们的学业不满意。作者进一步声称，晚一个小时上课会使学生更精力充沛、学习更有效，从而使学生在考试和其他作业上表现更佳，会极大地增进学业。此论证听起来似乎合情合理，但是它的基础却是错误的推论，因而是不能令人信服的。 首先，作者把两个彼此分离的、没有联系的调查研究放在一起以便得出他/她的结论。作者没能在两项调查之间证明有任何的联系。作者只是假设了两者间存在着某种关系来支持他/她的论证，但并没有提出任何证据说明两者真有联系。 再者，作者说到，许多高中生对他们自己的学业不满意。作者并没有说明不满意的学生的数目--多少是"许多"呢？自然，除非学生在班里名列前茅而且成绩优秀，否则，他们都会对自己的学业不满意。引用这一含混不清的学业不满意作为例证，并不能增强作者的论点。

此外，晚一个小时上课，可以让学生多睡一小时，但这并不自然而然地意味着他们会更精力充沛或学习更有效率。例如，学生晚上晚睡一小时，他们就会与7:30上课时一样没精打采。即使我们假设学生在白天会更精力充沛、学习更有效率，但这并不必然等于他们会在考试和其他作业上做得更好，或者在学业上会有很大进步。要做到那些需要学生更多的付出，而不仅仅是更精力充沛、学习效率更高--他们必须更努力地学习来改进学业。晚一个小时上课并不必定能把表现不好的学生改变成表现优秀的学生。

总之，作者的论证是基于错误的逻辑。单单晚一个小时上课并不意味着学生在考试和做作业时会有更佳的表现，也并不意味着他们会在学业上更棒。要使其论证更有力度，作者应该提供证据证明这两项调查是相关的，以及早晨多睡一小时会有利于学生的学习。没有这样的证据，作者只是试图把彼此无关的调查研究强行应用于学生的实际境况。结果只能是一篇不能令人信服的论辩，因为它不能说明在8:30而不是在7:30上课将会使学生更精力充沛、学习效率更高。即使我们假定学生会更精力充沛、学习效率更高，那也并不能必然地说明他们在考试和作业上能更加出色，更不能说明他们可极大地改进学业。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 17:22 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

23.
Butter has now been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. Only about 2 percent of customers have complained, indicating that 98 people out of 100 are happy with the change. Furthermore, many servers have reported that a number of customers who still ask for butter do not complain when they are given margarine instead. Clearly, either these customers cannot distinguish margarine from butter, or they use the term "butter" to refer to either butter or margarine. Thus, to avoid the expense of purchasing butter, the Happy Pancake House should extend this cost-saving change to its restaurants in the southeast and northeast as well.

In this argument, the arguer explains that butter has been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. The arguer then contends that only two percent of customers have complained, therefore 98 out of 100 people are happy with the change. The arguer further states that a number of customer do not complain when they are given margarine when they ask for butter, so these customers either cannot distinguish the two or use the word "butter" to refer to either real butter or margarine. The arguer then comes to the conclusion that the restaurant chain should make this cost-saving change to its restaurants in the southeast and northeast as well. This argument is not convincing because it suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the arguer states that because only two percent of customers have complained, the other ninety-eight percent must be happy. This clearly is faulty logic. There is no indication what the other ninety-eight percent of the people think because they simply do not say anything. While some of the people truly may not care, it is far more likely that they are not happy but choose to say nothing at all. People in general are reluctant to complain - rather than complain about margarine instead of butter, it is likely that they would just never return to the restaurant chain. Additionally, people may have noticed that the taste of the food is different, possibly even worse than before, but don't know exactly why and therefore cannot complain about the change. Merely assuming that the people who do not complain are happy is a critical flaw in the argument.

Secondly, the arguer states that many servers have reported that "a number" of customers who still ask for butter do not complain when they are given margarine instead; therefore they must not be able to distinguish between the two or use the word "butter" to refer to either butter or margarine. Here again the argument is baseless or very weak at best. As stated before, people in general are reluctant to complain, especially in the situation where they have "bothered" someone in the first place by requesting butter. To complain again that the server has brought margarine rather than butter might make them feel as if they are being difficult customers. To assume that they do not know the difference between margarine and butter is to assume that the customer is satisfied, which could be a fatal mistake leading to declining business and revenue. It is not a simple choice between whether they cannot distinguish between butter and margarine or that they use the word "butter" to refer to either one. There are many other possibilities, the worst-case scenario being that the customer does not like the food because of the taste of margarine rather than butter and never comes back. This is another critical flaw in the argument.

Finally, the arguer states that the Happy Pancake House should extend the cost-saving change to its restaurants in the southeast and northeast as well. There is no evidence presented in the argument that margarine is actually less expensive than margarine. Although the restaurant will avoid the expense of purchasing butter, they will still have the expense of purchasing margarine. Furthermore, even assuming that ninety-eight percent of the customers are happy with the change, these particular customers are located in the southwest United States. People in the southeast and northeast may have different tastes and a different reaction to butter being replaced by margarine.

In summary, the argument is based on mere assumptions - there is no direct evidence showing that Happy Pancake House customers are actually happy with the change from butter to margarine. It is highly likely that the arguer has it all wrong, and the restaurant chain should do some serious market research in all of its restaurants to determine the true impact of such a change.


(657 words)

参考译文
[题目]
在美国西南部幸福饼屋餐馆里，黄油已被麦淇淋(人造黄油)所取代。只有约百分之二的顾客有不满之辞，换言之，100个人中有98人对这种变化都感到满意。再者，许多服务生声称，一些仍然要黄油的顾客在被提供麦淇淋时并没有表示不满。显然，这些顾客要么是不能区别麦淇淋和黄油，要么就是他们用"黄油"一词既表示黄油又表示麦淇淋。因此，为了避免购买黄油的昂贵花费，幸福饼屋公司应该把这一节省费用的变化推广到东南部和东北部的餐馆。

[范文正文]
在这段论证中，论证者指出，在美国西南部的幸福饼屋餐馆里，黄油已被麦淇淋所取代，他/她然后高兴地说只有百分之二的顾客有不满之辞，因而100个人中有98个人都对这一变化感到满意。论证者进而说道，一些顾客要黄油时，虽然被提供麦淇淋，但也并不抱怨，所以这些顾客要么是无法区别两者，要么就是用"黄油"一词既表示真黄油，也表示麦淇淋。他/她最后得出结论：该连锁餐馆应该在东南部和东北部推广这一节省费用的变化。这一论证不能令人信服，因为它含有几处严重的谬误。

首先，论证者说因为只有百分之二的顾客有不满之辞，所以其余百分之九十八的人肯定是满意的。这在逻辑上是错误的。没有证据说明其余百分之九十八的人是怎样想的，因为他们什么也没有说。尽管有一些人对此的确漠不关心，但是很可能他们既不满意又没说什么。一般地，人们是不愿意把不满表达出来的。 他们可能不会抱怨吃了麦淇淋而没有吃到黄油，但他们更可能干脆再也不来这家连锁餐馆用餐了。此外，人们可能已注意到食物的味道变了，可能比以前更糟了，但不能确信为什么，所以不能对这样的变化表示不满。将不抱怨的人都假定为是满意的，这是该论证的一个严重失误。

其次，论证者声称，许多服务生说一些顾客仍然要黄油，但在被提供麦淇淋时并没有表示不满之辞，因此他们肯定是不能区别两者，或用"黄油"一词既表示黄油，也表示麦淇淋。这里，论证再次不合逻辑，或者充其量也是非常无力。如前所述，一般地，人们是不愿总把不满表达出来的，尤其是在他们已经要了黄油"麻烦"了他人的情况下。如果抱怨说服务生给他们端来的是麦淇淋而不是黄油，这会令人感到他们是难以侍候的顾客。论述者假定顾客不知道麦淇淋和黄油之间的区别，并且由此假定顾客是满意的，这是一个致命性错误，会导致生意和收益的下降。顾客是否能将黄油和麦淇淋区分清楚，以及他们是否用"黄油"一词既指真黄油又指麦淇淋，在此之间决不是一个简单的选择问题。会有许多其他的可能性，最糟糕的情况是顾客由于麦淇淋替代了黄油而不喜欢这种食物，因而再也不来这里就餐了。所以论证者的这一说法，又是一个严重的错误。

最后，论证者说道，幸福饼屋公司应该把这一节省成本的变化推广到东南部和东北部地区。论证中并没有证明麦淇淋实际上比黄油便宜。尽快餐馆可避免购买黄油的花费，他们仍将花钱购买麦淇淋。再者，即使假定百分之九十八的顾客对该变化满意，但这部分顾客仅限于美国的西南部。东南部和东北部的人会有不同的口味，会对麦淇淋取代黄油作出不同的反应。 总之，论证的基础只是假设--没有证据表明幸福饼屋的顾客实际上对用麦淇淋代替黄油这一变化是满意的。很有可能，论证者全错了。该连锁公司应该在其所有餐馆里进行认真调查，来确定这一变化的真正影响。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 17:31 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24.

Many employees of major United States corporations are fearful that they will lose their jobs in the near future, but this fear is largely unfounded. According to a recent study, a majority of companies expected to make new hires in the coming year, while fewer companies expected to lay off employees. In addition, although it is very disturbing to be laid off, the proliferation of programs and of workshops designed to improve job-finding skills has made being laid off far less painful than it once was.

In this argument, the arguer states that many employees of major United States corporations are afraid of losing their jobs in the near future, but further states that there is no reason for this fear. As support for the argument, the arguer cites a recent study indicating that a majority of companies expect to make new hires in the coming year and that fewer companies expected to lay off employees. The arguer also states that because of programs and workshops designed to improve job-finding skills, being laid off is not as bad as it used to be. This argument is unconvincing because it is based on problematic reasoning.

In the first place, the arguer claims that many employees of major U.S. companies are afraid of losing their jobs, then cites a study that talks about a majority of companies planning to hire in the coming year while fewer companies are planning to lay people off. There is no indication of whether the study only addressed major U.S. companies or all companies in general, which could have skewed the results. The study may not be applicable to employees of major U.S. companies, which are the ones that are worried, according to the arguer. The argument is weakened by the possible discrepancy between the study of companies in general and its applicability to employees of major U.S. companies.

Furthermore, the study shows that a majority of companies are planning new hires in the coming year, but it does not state how many people will be hired or for what positions. It is possible that these companies are planning to hire only a very few people, and it is likely that these new hires will be for entry level positions rather than positions for people with work experience. New hires at the entry level position can be paid less than people with work experience and sometimes can even replace higher paid employees. The fact that a majority of companies are planning to hire new people in the coming year may actually be a bad omen for people who are currently employed with such companies, or at the very least, it has nothing to do with whether they should worry about losing their jobs.

Additionally, the study cited by the arguer says that fewer companies are expecting to lay off employees. It is not clear what is meant by "fewer" companies - fewer than last year or fewer than the majority that plan on hiring new people in the coming year? Besides this ambiguity, the significance depends on the total number of people that these fewer companies plan to lay off. Although the number of companies laying people off may be lower, the number of employees that lose their jobs could be tremendous, particularly if they are major U.S. companies. This is hardly a comforting statistic to employees who are worried about losing their jobs in the near future.

Finally, the arguer states that the proliferation of programs and workshops designed to improve job-finding skills has made being laid off not as bad as it once was. This is irrelevant to an employee who fears losing his or her job. Programs and workshops can only help after the person has lost his or her job - it can't take away the fear of losing the job in the first place. Furthermore, programs and workshops don't pay the rent. They may help to improve the skills of finding a job, but they cannot take away the fear of losing a job.

In summary, the arguer bases the argument on a study that may or may not be applicable to employees of major U.S. companies and commits the fallacy of confusing job-finding workshops and programs with alleviating the fear of losing a job in the first place. The argument is therefore unconvincing and fails to deliver on its premise.


(646 words)

参考译文
[题目]
美国各大公司里的许多雇员担心，他们会在不远的将来失去工作。但这一担心是没有根据的。依照最近的一项调查研究，大多数公司打算在来年招聘新雇员，而没有那么多的公司打算辞退雇员。此外，尽管被辞退是非常令人恼火的，但是专为改进找工作技能而设计的培训项目和讲习班数量激增，使失业给人引起的痛苦远少于以前。

[范文正文]
在这段论证中，论证者论述道，美国各大公司里的许多雇员都担心他们会在不远的将来失去工作，但是接着又说这一担心没有理由。作为对论证的支持，论证者引用了最近的一项调查研究来说明大多数公司打算在来年招收新雇员，而且没有那么多的公司打算辞退雇员。论证者还声称，有了为改进找工作技能而设计的培训项目和讲习班，失业已经不象以往那么可怕了。这一论证是不能令人信服的，因为全文基于错误的推理。 首先，论证者声称，美国主要的公司里许多雇员担心会失去工作，然后引用了一项调查研究说大多数公司计划在新的一年里招聘新职员，而且没有那么多的公司打算辞退雇员。但由于没有表明调查是否只涉及美国主要公司还是涉及所有的公司，这一点会对结果产生不同的解释。这项调查也可能不适用于美国主要公司的雇员，但正是这些的雇员--论证者指出--正在遭受着担惊受怕的折磨。由于对全体公司的研究与该研究对美国主要公司雇员的适用性之间可能存在矛盾，故该论证的力度倍受削弱。

进而言之，调查表明大多数公司计划在来年招聘新雇员，但它并没有说明将招聘多少人或者在什么职位上招聘新人。很可能这些公司只打算招为数不多的人，也可能这些新工作岗位只是为新手而设，而不是为有工作经验的人而设。新聘的职员可以比有工作经验的人工资低，而且有时甚至会取代工资高的雇员。大多数公司打算在来年招聘新员工这一事实，实际上对于目前受雇于这些公司的人来说可能是个不好的征兆，或者至少这与他们是否应该担心失去工作毫无关系。 再者，论证者所引用的调查研究说到，没有那么多的公司打算辞退雇员。我们不清楚"没有那么多的"公司到底是什么意思--是比去年更少，还是比打算来年招聘的大多数少？除了这一含混之处，关键在于这些为数不多的公司所计划解雇的人员数目。尽管拟解雇员工的公司数量较少，但失去工作的人员的数目可能会很大，尤其当它们是美国的大公司时。这对于担心不久将会失去工作的人们来说，很难说是一个令人宽慰的统计数字。 最后，论证者提到，为了改进找工作技能而设计的培训项目和讲习班数量激增，使失业不像以往那么糟糕了。这对于担心失去工作的雇员毫不相关。培训项目与讲习班只是在人们失去工作后才能提供帮助，它根本不能消除对失去工作的担心。再者，培训项目和讲习班并不能付房租。它们可能会有助于改进找工作的技能，但并不能消除对失去工作的担心。

总之，论证者把论证的基础建立在一个或许适用也或许不适用于美国主要公司的雇员的调查研究上，并犯有一逻辑谬误，把找工作的培训项目和讲习班与缓解失业的担心混为一谈。因而，论证是不能令人信服的，且不是基于前提而展开的。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 18:55 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

25.
The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building to its manager.

"One month ago, all the showerheads on the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers were modified to restrict the water flow to approximately 1/3 of its original force. Although actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustment are not yet available, the change will obviously result in a considerable savings for Sunnyside Corporation, since the corporation must pay for water each month. Except for a few complaints about low water pressure, no problems with showers have been reported since the adjustment. Clearly, restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase our profits further."

In this argument, the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building states that one month ago, the showerheads on the first five floors of the building were changed to restrict the flow of water to one third of its original force. The owner argues that the change will result in saving a considerable amount of money for the company because the corporation pays for the water each month. The owner further states that other than a few complaints about low water pressure, there have been no problems with the showers reported since the change. The owner then concludes that all twenty floors of the apartment building should have restricted water flow to further increase the corporation's profits. This argument is based on faulty logic and fails to convince that the change will increase the corporation's profits.

First of all, it is possible that there will actually be no water savings at all due to the modification of the showerheads. It is quite a reduction in water flow, down to one third of its original force, so it is likely that it takes Sunnyside's tenants much longer to take a shower. If it takes the tenants three times as long to take a shower, there will be no net savings of water at all, and therefore no cost savings. Because the actual "before and after adjustment" water usage statistics are not available, it is purely speculation that less water will be used.

Secondly, showers are only one use of water and perhaps not even the biggest use at that. Considerable amounts of water may be used for washing clothes, for example. The percentage of water used by taking a shower may in fact be a very small proportion of the total water usage. Reducing the flow of water through the showerhead may result in very little overall water savings. Furthermore, it is possible that most of the tenants of the apartment building take a bath rather than a shower. There would be absolutely no water savings by changing the showerheads in apartments where the tenants take a bath instead of a shower. If there is no or very little water saved by making the change to restrict the flow of water through showerheads, there will obviously be very little increase of profits due to the lower cost of water usage.

Thirdly, the owner states that there have been only a few complaints about low water pressure, and no problems with showers having been reported since the adjustment. The owner doesn't state exactly how many complaints there have been related to how many apartments have had their showerheads modified. For example, if five out of a total of ten tenants have complained, a "few" is a significant percentage of those that live there. Additionally, it is likely that many more tenants don't like the change but have not had the time or the willingness to complain. Rather than complain, it is possible that they will simply move out. If tenants begin to move out because of the poor performance of their showers, profits for Sunnyside will decrease rather than increase. Fewer tenants paying rent would have a far more negative impact on profitability than any positive impact by the lower costs of reduced water usage. The owner should make further inquiries as to whether the modified showerheads have caused problems rather than waiting for complaints to come in before changing over all the showerheads in the building.

To summarize, the owner is not looking at the big picture but rather basing his argument on assumptions that have no basis in fact. Without providing evidence that the tenants are indeed not bothered by the change and that reducing water usage will actually further increase profits, the owner's argument remains unconvincing.

(633 words)

参考译文
[题目]

下文取自阳光塔公寓业主给其经理的一封信：

"一个月前，阳光塔公寓五层以下所有人的淋浴喷嘴都进行了改装，以便把水流控制在原水流的近三分之一。尽管在改装之前和之后的实际用水的读数目前尚未获得，但是这一变化显然会为阳光公司节省大笔开支，因为公司必须每月支付水费。除了几起投诉说水压低之外，自调整改装之后，还没有报告说有什么淋浴问题。显然，对阳光塔公寓全部20层实施限水，将进一步增加我们的利润。"

[范文正文]
在这一论证中，阳光塔公寓的业主声称一个月前五层以下的淋浴喷嘴都进行了改装，以便把水流控制在原水流的三分之一。业主说到，这一改装将为公司节省大笔开支，因为公司每月须支付水费。业主进而言道，除了几起投诉说水压较低以外，改装之后还没有报告说有什么淋浴问题。业主接着得出结论，公寓的全部20层都应该限水，以便进一步增加公司的利润。本段论证的逻辑基础是错误的，并不能使人确信改装将会提高公司的利润。

首先，很有可能由于淋浴喷嘴的改装而一点也不能节水。把水流控制在原水流的三分之一，水流肯定减弱了许多，因而很可能阳光公寓的房客冲淋浴的时间延长了许多。倘若房客洗淋浴的时间是原先的三倍，就不会节水，因而也不会节约费用。由于"改装前和改装后"的实际用水量尚无记录，用水少纯粹是臆断。

第二，淋浴只是用水的其中一种方式，或许甚至不是最主要的方式。例如，大量的水会用来洗衣。淋浴用水的百分率，实际上可能是总用水量中的很小一部分。在喷嘴上减少水流，可能会有少量的节水。再者，有可能公寓的房客洗盆浴而不是冲淋浴。这样，在房客洗盆浴而不洗淋浴的公寓改换淋浴喷嘴，根本就不会节水。如果改装淋浴喷嘴限制水流并没能节水，那么也就不会因为降低用水成本而增加利润。 第三，业主说道，只有几起投诉抱怨水压低，而且自改装之后还没有报告说淋浴有问题。业主没有精确无误地陈述有多少起投诉与多少间改装淋浴喷嘴的公寓有关。例如，如果10个房客中有5个投诉，那么"几起"就是居住在那里的房客总数中的一个很高的百分比。此外，有可能许多其他的房客不喜欢这一改装但没有时间或不愿意投诉。他们没有采用投诉这一形式，而是可能搬出去。倘若房客因为淋浴问题而搬迁出去，那么阳光公司的利润不但不会增加反而会减少。租房的房客减少，会因为减少水量对总体利润产生负面影响而非正面影响。业主在把公寓所有的淋浴喷嘴改装之前应该作进一步调查，以便弄清楚改装的淋浴是否已造成问题，而不应该等待人们前来投诉。

总而言之，业主没能整体地看待问题，而是把论证建立在完全没有根据的臆断之上。由于没有提供证据说明房客并没有因改装而受到困扰，以及减少用水量的确会进一步增加利润，故业主的论证是不能令人信服的。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 19:14 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

26.
The following is a recommendation from the director of personnel to the president of Professional Printing Company.

"In a recent telephone survey of automobile factory workers, older employees were less likely to report that having a supervisor present increases their productivity. Among workers aged 18 to 29, 27 percent said that they are more productive in the presence of their immediate supervisor, compared to 12 percent for those aged 30 or over, and only 8 percent for those aged 50 or over. Clearly, if our printing company hires mainly older employees, we will increase productivity and save money because of the reduced need for supervisors."

With this argument, the director of personnel is trying to convince the president of the Professional Printing Company that a recent telephone survey of automobile factory workers shows that older employees are less likely to report that having a supervisor present increases their productivity. The personnel director then concludes that the printing company should therefore hire mainly older employees to increase productivity and save money because of the reduced need for supervisors. This argument is based on a false analogy and suffers from several other critical flaws.

Firstly, there is no evidenced presented that the telephone survey of automobile factory workers is reliable. It is not clear how the survey was performed, the number and job titles of those who were surveyed, or what is the margin of error. Furthermore, the director of personnel only states "older employees were less likely to report that having a supervisor present increases their productivity." This is not the same as saying that older employees are in fact more productive without a supervisor or even that they are equally productive with or without a supervisor present. In addition, the survey shows that only eight percent of workers aged fifty or over said that they are more productive in the presence of a supervisor, but it does not state what the other ninety-two percent of these workers said. It cannot be assumed that this automatically means that this age group of workers does not need supervision. The wording of the telephone survey is a problem, leading to the director of personnel's blind assumption that hiring mainly older employees will increase productivity and save money due to a reduced need for supervisors. There is no such evidence presented in the argument.

Furthermore, even assuming the validity of the study, the argument is based on the false analogy that automobile factory workers and printing company employees are the same. In an automobile factory, it is likely that the workers perform repetitious work and become quite skilled over time at their jobs, lessening the need for immediate supervision. With a printing company, however, nearly every job is different than the last, making it more difficult to become proficient. It is easy to see that older automobile factory workers would become experts at assembly line work, for example, and therefore believe that they need no supervision to do their work. With a printing company, perhaps older workers would not be suited to this type of work and would therefore be less productive rather than more productive. Printing work and automobile manufacturing are clearly two very different types of work requiring distinct types of work skills. It does not follow that because older automobile workers feel they don't need supervision that the same theory would apply to printing company employees. The director of personnel merely assumes that the workers would be the same in both industries without providing any proof that this is true.

In summary, the director of personnel's argument fails to convince because it is based on a false analogy as well as problematic reasoning. He or she directly compares automobile factory workers to potential employees of a printing company, which require very different job skills. Furthermore, the study itself may have been misinterpreted, as it merely states that only eight percent of workers aged fifty or over are more productive in the presence of their immediate supervisor. It expressly does not say what the other ninety-two percent of that group of workers reported. There is no evidence presented by the director of personnel that hiring mainly older employees will increase productivity and save money due to a reduced need for supervisors, and his or her argument should be rejected.

(618 words)


参考译文
[题目]
下文是人事部主任给职业印刷公司总裁的建议： "在最近一次对汽车工厂工人的电话调查中，说有工头在场就能提高生产效率的年龄较大的员工相对较少。在年龄为18岁至29岁的工人当中，有27%的人说当着他们顶头上司的面会工作起来更有效率；相对而言，年龄为30岁及以上的工人，这样说的仅有12％；年龄为50岁及以上的人仅为8%。显然，倘若我们印刷公司主要雇用年岁较大的雇员，那么我们将会提高生产效率并因减少工头而节省费用。"

[范文正文]
凭借上述论证，人事部主任试图让职业印刷公司的总裁相信，最近一次对汽车工厂工人的电话调查表明，年岁较大的雇员更有可能不会说有工头在场会提高生产效率。人事部主任接着得出结论：印刷公司应该雇用年岁较大的雇员以便提高生产效率，并且，因为能减少对工头的需要，从而得以节省费用。这一论证是建立在错误的类比之上的，而且存在几处严重的错误。

首先，没有证据说明对汽车工厂工人的电话调查是可信赖的。我们不清楚调查是如何进行的，那些被调查者的数目和工种是什么，以及误差的幅度是多少。再者，人事部主任只是说："年岁较大的雇员更有可能不会说有工头在场会提高生产效率。"这与下述说法并不完全相同，即年纪较大的雇员在没有工头的情况下实际上会有更高的工作效率；它甚至与下述说法也不相同，即无论是有工头在场或没有工头在场，他们的生产效率同样地高。另外，调查显示，50岁及以上的工人中只有百分之八的人说工头在场会使生产效率更高，但没有说明另外百分之九十二的工人说了些什么。这并不能被假定为它自然而然地意味着这一年龄段的工人不需要监督。电话调查的措辞也是一个问题，它使人事部主任盲目假定主要雇用岁数较大的雇员就能提高生产效率而且因为减少对工头的需要而节省费用。论证中并没有提出这方面的证据。

其次，即使我们承认该项调查的有效性，它仍然是基于虚妄的类比--把汽车工厂的工人比作印刷公司的雇员。在汽车工厂，很可能工人从事重复性的工作，在一段时间后就对工作熟练了，所以就减少了对直接监督的需要。然而在印刷公司，几乎每一项工作都与其他的不同，所以要做到很熟练是比较困难的。例如，我们很容易见到，岁数较大的汽车工厂的工人成为装配线上的专家，从而相信他们不需要有人来监督他们的工作。但在印刷公司，岁数较大的工人或许不适合这类工作，所以生产效率会降低而不是提高。印刷工作和汽车制造很显然是两种完全不同的工种，需要不同的技能。我们并不能说因为岁数较大的汽车工人觉得不需要监工，因而这套理论也同样适用于印刷公司的雇员。人事部主任只是臆断这两种行业的工人是同样的，因为他/她没有提供任何证据证明这一点。

总之，人事部主任的论证没有说服力，因为它的类比基础是谬误的，推理也是成问题的。他/她简单地把汽车工厂的工人比作印刷公司的潜在雇员，但两者实际上需要非常不同的工作技能。再者，调查本身被曲解了，因为它只是说50岁及以上的工人中仅有8%的工人当着其顶头上司的面会有较高的生产效率。人事部主任也没有提供证据证明，主要地雇用岁数较大的雇员会提高生产效率，以及由于减少对监工的需要而能节省费用。因此，他/她的论证应予摈弃。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 19:21 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

27.
The following appeared as part of an article in a health magazine.

"A new discovery warrants a drastic change in the diets of people living in the United States. Two scientists have recently suggested that omega -3 fatty acids (found in some fish and fish oils) play a key role in mental health. Our ancestors, who ate less saturated fat and more polyunsaturated fat, including omega -3 fatty acids, were much less likely to suffer from depression than we are today. Moreover, modern societies---such as those in Japan and Taiwan---that consume large quantities of fish report depression rates lower than that in the United States. Given this link between omega -3 fatty acids and depression, it is important for all people in the United States to increase their consumption of fish in order to prevent depression."

In this argument, the arguer states that because of a new discovery, there should be a drastic change in the diets of people in the United States - an increase in their consumption of fish to prevent depression. To support the argument, the arguer cites two scientists who have suggested that omega - 3 fatty acids, found in some fish and fish oils, play a key role in mental health. The arguer further claims that our ancestors ate less saturated fat, more polyunsaturated fat, and were much less likely to suffer from depression than people today. He or she also states that modern societies such as Japan and Taiwan consume large quantities of fish and report depression rates lower than the United States. This argument is based on problematic reasoning and therefore must be rejected.

First of all, the arguer cites as evidence two scientists who have suggested that omega-3 fatty acids play a key role in mental health. This is problematic for two reasons - only two scientists are mentioned, and they have only suggested a link, which is far from having proved it. There are no studies cited other than that two unnamed scientists have merely suggested a link, which is far from strong evidence that all people in the United States should drastically change their diets.

Secondly, the arguer states that our ancestors ate less saturated fat and more polyunsaturated fat, including omega-3 fatty acids, and that they were much less likely to suffer from depression than people today. There is no proof of this given in the argument, merely the arguer's statement or opinion. Furthermore, assuming the truth of these statements, there are many other contributing factors to an increased rate of depression today over that of our ancestors. For one thing, depression is much better diagnosed now whereas in the past it was likely to be just written off as simply "a case of the blues". Advances in medical knowledge have enabled people to not only be diagnosed as being depressed but also treated for the problem. In the past it was likely that cases of depression were underreported due to ignorance of the problem or the stigma associated with any type of mental illness. Additionally, lifestyle factors other than diet have contributed to problems with depression today. Excessive debt, increased social pressures and pressure at work are all contributing factors to depression that are bigger problems for people today than for their ancestors. Diet alone probably has nothing or very little to do with the increase in cases of depression.

Finally, the arguer cites Japan and Taiwan as modern societies that eat large quantities of fish who report lower rates of depression than the United States. Once again, there are many other factors to consider besides diet for the discrepancy. Cultural differences, lifestyle differences and the stigma of admitting that one is suffering from depression could all alter the reporting rates of depression in these other countries. There is no direct causal link demonstrated between the consumption of fish and omega-3 fatty acids and a lower rate of cases of depression in these societies outside of the United States. Additionally, the arguer states that all people in the United States should increase their consumption of fish to prevent depression, but it is possible that many people already eat enough fish or do not need to prevent depression as they have no problems in that regard.

In summary, the argument is based on some very tenuous reasoning including the mere suggestion of a link between omega-3 fatty acids and mental health by only two scientists and some anecdotal evidence of lower depression rates in countries that consume large quantities of fish. Without strong evidence of a direct causal link between eating fish, omega-3 fatty acids and depression, the argument fails to convince.

(640 words)

参考译文
[题目]
下文是一份健康杂志上某篇文章的一部分：

"一项新的发现证明，生活在美国的民众有必要在饮食上进行巨大的改变。最近有两位科学家暗示，Ω-3脂肪酸（发现于某些鱼类和鱼油中）对于大脑的健康有着重要作用。我们的祖先吃较少的饱和脂肪和较多的多不饱和脂肪，包括Ω-3脂肪酸，所以与我们今天相比，不易患忧郁症。再者，某些现代社会--例如食用大量鱼类的***和台湾--据说比美国患忧郁症的比率低。考虑到Ω-3脂肪酸与忧郁症之间的这种联系，很有必要让所有的美国人增加食用鱼类，以便防止忧郁症。"

[范文正文]
在这一论证中，论证者说到，由于一项新的发现，应该大大地改变美国人的饮食：增加鱼类的食用量以防止忧郁症。为了支持其论点，论证者引用了两位科学家的研究，他们指出鱼和鱼油中所含的Ω-3脂肪酸对于大脑的健康具有重要的作用。论证者进而声称，我们的祖先吃饱和脂肪较少，多不饱和脂肪较多，所以与我们相比少患忧郁症。他/她还说到，诸如***和台湾这类现代社会大量食用鱼类，而且据说比美国患忧郁症的比率低。这一论证的推论是有问题的，因此不能接受。 首先，论证者援引两位科学家的研究，他们暗示Ω-3脂肪酸对大脑的健康起着重要作用。这句话在两方面存在问题：仅仅只有两位科学家，而且他们只是暗示某种联系，而这种联系远未得到证明。除了两位没有署名的科学家只是提到这一联系之外，作者没能援引其他任何研究，远不能构成强有力的证据来说明美国的所有人都应该大大地改变饮食习惯。

其次，论证者说到，我们的祖先较少食用饱和脂肪而较多食用多不饱和脂肪，包括Ω-3脂肪酸，而且，他们比今天的人们较少患有忧郁症。但是，论证中没有提出证据来证明这一点。它只不过是论证者的一种说法或看法。再者，即使假定这些都是真实无疑的，仍有许多其他因素致使我们今天患忧郁症的比率比我们祖先的高。其一是现在忧郁症更易被诊断出来，而过去很可能只把它看作"不高兴"而一笔勾销。医学的进步，使人们不但可以诊断忧郁症而且还可以医疗。在过去，很可能由于对忧郁症的无知或者与神经病相关的论点而没有将它们充分报告出来。此外，除了饮食外，生活方式的因素也会导致今天的忧郁症。债务过重，渐增的社会压力，工作中的压力等，这些都是导致忧郁症成为一个我们今天比我们的祖先更为严重的问题。饮食自身可能与忧郁症的增多无关或者关系甚微。 最后，论证者列举了***和台湾作为实例来证明，象这样一些大量食用鱼类的现代社会，其忧郁症发病率低于美国。再一次，除了饮食导致这一差别之外，还有许多其他因素需要考虑。文化的不同，生活方式的不同，以及承认自己患忧郁症所会带来的耻辱，可能都会改变这些国家或地区报告忧郁症的比率。在食用鱼类和Ω-3脂肪酸与美国之外的那些社会里忧郁症发病率低之间，作者并没有证明某种直接的因果联系。此外，论证者声称，在美国的所有人都应该增加鱼类的食用量以防止忧郁症。然而，很有可能已有许多人吃了足够的鱼类，或者根本就不需要防止忧郁症，因为他们根本就不存在此类问题。 总之，该项论证基于非常脆弱的推理，包括两位科学家仅仅在Ω-3脂肪酸与大脑健康之间所暗示的联系，以及一些轶闻趣事式的证据来说明食用大量鱼类的国家和地区忧郁症发病率低。因为没有有力的证据表明吃鱼、Ω-3脂肪酸与忧郁症之间的因果关系，这篇论证不能令人信服。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 20:30 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

28.
A new report suggests that men and women experience pain very differently from one another, and that doctors should consider these differences when prescribing pain medications. When researchers administered the same dosage of kappa options--- a painkiller---to 28 men and 20 women who were having their wisdom teeth extracted, the women reported feeling much less pain than the men, and the easing of pain lasted considerably longer in women. This research suggests that kappa opioids should be prescribed for women whenever pain medication is required, whereas men should be given other kinds of pain medication. In addition, researchers should reevaluate the effects of all medications on men versus women.

In this argument, the arguer cites a new report suggesting that men and women experience pain very differently from one another and that doctors need to consider these differences when prescribing pain medicine. The arguer cites as evidence the results of the study, which indicated that when giving a painkiller called kappa opioids to twenty-eight men and twenty women who were having wisdom teeth taken out, the women reported feeling much less pain than the men with the easing of the pain also lasting longer in women. The arguer then concludes that this same painkiller should always be prescribed for women when painkillers are required, and that men should be given some other kinds of pain medications. The arguer finally concludes that researchers should study the effects of all medications on men versus women. This argument is not convincing because it contains several critical fallacies.

In the first place, this was a very small study - just twenty-eight men and twenty women so it is possible that the sample of people studied is not representative of the entire population. It may also be that the men's wisdom teeth extractions were much more difficult cases than that of the women, so naturally the pain was worse, either because the small sample size contained a disproportionate number of difficult men's cases or because men's wisdom teeth are physically more problematic to remove. In either case, a small study like this is not enough on which to base such a broad conclusion.

Furthermore, the arguer states that the researchers administered the same dosage to both the men and the women. Men are normally physically bigger in body size than women, thus making the same dosage more powerful in the smaller women when compared with its effect on the larger men. It is likely that a dosage that takes relative body size into account would provide similar levels of pain relief for both men and women, therefore it is not necessary to use a different drug on men but rather a larger dose to reflect their larger physical size.

In addition, the arguer concludes that women should be given kappa opioids whenever pain medication is required. This fallacy ignores critical factors such as the possibility of side effects of the medications in some women, such as women who are pregnant. Simply because one small study appeared to show that the medication worked better for women than men does not mean that it should always be used for pain relief for women. This part of the argument also fails to take into consideration that there are other, even better pain medications that could also be used rather than kappa opioids.

Finally, the arguer says that researchers should reevaluate the effects of all medications on men versus women. This simply does not follow as there is no evidence presented to warrant such research. This was a small and probably misleading report on only one type of painkiller. It would be foolish to launch such a broad and expansive research study on all medications and their effects on the different sexes. Instead, medications should be prescribed and adjusted on a case-by-case basis depending on the patient's needs, not by gender.

In summary, the arguer bases his or her argument on groundless conclusions that don't really prove anything. Without a broader study that takes into account body size, other types of pain medications and the severity of the medical procedure, this argument will remain unconvincing and should be ignored.

(586 words)


参考译文
[题目]

一篇新的报告表明，男人和女人感受疼痛的方式彼此不同，因此医师在开具处方治疗头痛时应考虑到这些差异。当研究人员给拔智齿的28位男性和20位女性用同样剂量的卡巴止痛药时，女性反映说她们受的疼痛比男性少，而且缓解疼痛的时间在女性身上比较长。这一研究表明，当需要止痛药时，卡巴止痛药应该给女性服用，而男性应该服用其他类型的止痛药。此外，研究人员应该根据男女差异重新评估所有药物的疗效。

[范文正文]
在这篇论证中，论证者引用一篇新的报告，说男性和女性感受疼痛的方式彼此不同并且说医师在开具处方时需要考虑到这些差异。论证者还引用了一项研究作为证据，说明当给28位男性和20位女性服用名叫卡巴的止痛药拔智齿时，女性反映她们遭受的疼痛比男性少，而且缓解疼痛的时间在女性身上较长。论证者接着得出结论：当需要使用止痛药时，这种止痛药应该总是给女性服用而男性应该服用其他类型的止痛药。最后论证者还说，研究人员应该根据男女的差异去研究所有药物的疗效。这一论证由于存在几处严重的错误，所以不能令人信服。 首先，这项研究所涵盖的范围太小--只有28位男性和20位女性，因而很可能研究对象的整个抽样不能代表全体患病人口。也可能拔男性的智齿要比拔女性的困难得多，所以很自然男人的疼痛更厉害一些，或者是因为很小的抽样范围中只包含了拔牙困难的男性的一个不成比例的数量，或者是因为男人的智齿从生理上讲更难拔出。但无论属于何种情形，这样小范围的研究不足以作为这样重要结论的基础。

再者，论证者声称，研究人员给男性和女性使用同样剂量的止痛药。男性比女性在身材上更大，所以与大个儿的男性相比，同样剂量的药物在小个儿的女性身上会更有效。把身材大小考虑进去的剂量可能会对男性和女性产生同样程度的疼痛缓解效果，因此，不必要对男性使用另一种不同的药物，而只需对身材较大者使用较大剂量即可。 此外，论证者的结论是，当女性无论何时需要止痛药时，都应该服用卡巴。这一谬误忽视了某些重要的因素，例如该药可能会对某些女性产生副作用，如孕妇。仅仅由于一个涵盖范围很小的研究似乎说明这种药物在女性身上比在男性身上更有效，这并不意味着女性应该永远用它来缓解疼痛。论证的这一部分同样也没能考虑到会有其他的、甚至比卡巴更有效的止痛药可用。 最后，论证者提出，研究人员应该重新评估所有药物在男性身上相对于在女性身上所产生的疗效。这一论点显得毫无依据，因为论证者没能提供证据来证明进行这一研究的合理性。这是一份仅涉及到一种止痛药的研究范围甚为狭窄且可能带有误导性质的报告。依据这份报告来对所有药物及对男女患者不同疗效展开如此广泛、如此大规模的研究，无疑会显得愚蠢。相反，大夫应该依据病人的具体需要，而不是依据性别，来对单个病例逐个开列药方，并不断作出调整。

总之，论证者的论证，是建立在什么也证明不了的、毫无根据的结论之上。如果没有一项将身材、其它止痛药、医疗程序的严重程度考虑进去的范围较广的研究，该论证将是没有说服力的，应该不予理睬。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 20:38 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

29.
The following is a letter to the editor of the Glenville Gazette, a local newspaper.

"Over the past few years, the number of people who have purchased advance tickets for the Glenville Summer Concert series has declined, indicating lack of community support. Although the weather has been unpredictable in the past few years, this cannot be the reason for the decline in advance ticket purchases, because many people attended the concerts even in bad weather. Clearly, then, the reason for the decline is the choice of music, so the organizers of the concert should feature more modern music in the future and should be sure to include music composed by Richerts, whose recordings Glenville residents purchase more often than any other contemporary recordings. This strategy will undoubtedly increase advance ticket purchases and will increase attendance at the concerts."

This argument addresses the problem of a declining number of people purchasing advance tickets for the Glenville Summer Concert series, which the arguer states indicates a lack of community support. The arguer states that bad weather cannot be the reason for the decline because even though the weather had been unpredictable over the past few years, people attended the concerts even in poor weather. The arguer then concludes that the problem must lie with the choice of music, and that more modern music as well as recordings by Richerts, whose recordings are purchased more often by Glenville residents than any other contemporary recordings, should be included to increase advance ticket sales and increase attendance. This argument is unconvincing because the arguer reaches the conclusion based on faulty logic.

In the first place, the writer of the letter states that the decrease in the number of people who purchase advance tickets for the event indicates a lack of community support. A simple decline in advance ticket sales does not necessarily indicate a lack of community support; it may just be that there is no benefit to buying the tickets in advance. It is possible that more people will continue to attend the concert than ever before by buying tickets at the gate rather than in advance. There may be other reasons instead of a lack of community support for the decline in advance ticket sales. For example, in the past there may have been a discount given for buying the tickets in advance. Perhaps in the past there was a "rain-out" provision where advance ticket holders could get a refund if the weather was bad. The dropping of these advance ticket benefits would explain the decline in the number of people buying them. If there is no benefit to buying advance tickets, there is no reason for the community to buy the tickets early. The arguer fails to take these possibilities into account, thus weakening his or her argument.

Furthermore, the writer states that although the weather has been unpredictable in the past few years, this cannot be the reason for declining advance ticket sales because people still attended even in bad weather. Those that attended in bad weather probably only had two choices: attend the concert and suffer through the weather or stay at home, thus wasting the money that was spent on the tickets. Once they attended in the concert in bad weather and had a terrible time, it is likely that they decided that it was not worth it to buy tickets in advance and therefore decided to wait until the day of the show to purchase them in the future. Additionally, it does not follow that the decline is due to the choice of music at the concerts - there is no evidence presented that modern music would attract more advance or regular ticket purchasers or that Richerts' compositions would get more people to buy tickets in advance or attend the concerts. Simply because Glenville residents buy more Richerts recordings than any other contemporary recordings does not mean that they would like to see them performed at the Glenville Summer concert series; in fact, there may be more out-of-town residents that usually attend the concerts than Glenville residents. Again, the writer fails to address these factors in his or her argument.

In summary, the letter writer reaches his or her conclusions based on poorly interpreted information. Without providing direct evidence that the music included is to blame for the decline in advance ticket sales and that changing the music would increase those sales as well as overall attendance, the writer's argument ultimately fails to deliver on its premise.
(618 words)

参考译文
[题目]
下述文字摘自一封致某地方报纸《格兰维尔报》编辑的信函：
"在过去的几年里，预购格兰维尔夏季系列音乐会门票的人数有所下跌，这说明社区的支持力度不够。尽管在过去的几年里天气变化出人意料，但是这并不是预购门票下跌的原因，因为许多人甚至在坏天气时照样去听音乐会。显然，下跌的原因在于对音乐的选择，所以音乐会的组织者在未来应该演奏更多的现代音乐，应该保证演奏里查兹谱写的乐曲，因为比起任何其他当代作曲家的唱片，格兰维尔的居民更经常地购买他的唱片。这一策略将保证增加门票的预购数，并将增加听音乐会的人数。"


[范文正文]
这一论证陈述道，格兰维尔夏季系列音乐会预购门票的人数下降，论证者认为这表明社区的支持力度不够。论证者声称，坏天气不可能是人数下降的原因，因为尽管在过去的几年里天气变化出人意料，但是人们在出现坏天气时照样去听音乐会。论证者接着得出结论：问题在于对音乐的选择，应该演奏更为现代的音乐以及里查兹谱写的乐曲，因为格兰维尔的居民购买他的唱片比购买任何其他当代作曲家的唱片更为频繁，这样便能增加门票的预购数以及听音乐会的人数。这一论证缺乏说服力，因为论证者所得出的结论是基于错误的逻辑。

首先，信函作者声称预购音乐会门票的人数下跌表明社区的支持力度不够。单凭预购门票的下降，并不能完全说明社区的支持力度不够。很可能是因为预购门票没有什么益处。也可能与以往任何时候相比，更多的人会随时在售票处购票而不是预购门票来继续听音乐会。可能存在其他原因导致预购门票下降，而不是因为社区的支持力度不够。例如，过去，可能预购门票可以获得打折。或许过去有"遇雨取消"的规定，如果天气不好预售票持有者可以退票。这样的预售门票裨益的取消，可以解释预购门票人数下降的原因。倘若预购门票没有益处，也就没有理由让社区居民提前购票了。论证者没有把这些因素考虑在内，因此削弱了他/她的论证。

再者，信函作者说道，尽管在过去的几年中天气变幻无常，但这不能构成预售票下降的原因，因为人们在遇到坏天气时照样去听音乐会。那些在坏天气去听音乐会的人可能只有两个选择：去听音乐会并忍受坏天气，或者呆在家里并浪费门票钱。一旦他们在坏天气去听音乐会而且过得很不愉快，他们很可能会认为不值得提前买票，从而决定在将来要等到演出那天才去买票。此外，说预购门票数量的下降是由于音乐会对音乐的选择所造成的，这也没有道理--没有证据表明现代音乐会吸引更多的预购门票和普通门票的购买，或者说里查兹的曲目会让更多的人预购门票和听音乐会。只是因为格兰维尔居民购买里查兹的唱片比购买其他当代唱片多，并不能意味着他们喜欢看到他的这些音乐在格兰维尔夏季系列音乐会上被演出。实际上，经常性听音乐会的城外居民可能要比格兰维尔的居民来得多。信函作者又没能在其论证中探讨这些因素。 总之，信函作者只是凭借没有经过恰当解释的信息得出其结论。因为没有提供直接的证据证明音乐会所选择的曲目是预售票下降的原因，以及改变音乐会的曲目会增加预售票和听音乐会的人数，信函作者的论证最终无法自圆其说。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-21 20:48 编辑 ]

yovoUID：209758

呵呵

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

我坦白，我也不知道为什么发在这里，大概是因为这里没有人会“顶”“谢谢”的打断把，可以让我整理思路。原先发在寄托天下的，可是那里的服务器，3天2头上不去，总不能让我等他修好再考试 = =
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... page%3D1&page=1
下来就是我的看题速度基本上保持在40秒~~~ 刚好是发一个帖子的时间。

嗯，为什么不坐在自家的word上面？因为它有自动纠错功能。很多问题我就看不出来了。还有，就是这样的发贴，很容易检索，最后做好了，一个导入就可以自动排序，然后做成电子书，是不是很不错涅？但是文本格式的电子书，我还不会做= =。当然那就是我考完试以后的后话了。

别人看着没有什么用，可是对于需要的人，确实是一场宝贵的。
想想看，244+248 道题库里面，全国的统计出来的高频考题，找到范文，然后排列出来，对于要上考场的学生，这是异常节约时间的。特别是咱们学医的同志，平时白天黑夜的泡在病房，这样的临阵磨枪，也要快得多不是？（我自己倒是很早就磨了，所以挑的都是经典）

为什么没有发在外语沙龙？因为我还没有做好,汗， 尚在草稿阶段，那边的Xatrixer 斑竹彪悍，我怕半成品活不见人死不见尸的拍回来。 = =。飘洋过海的地方，这几天更是不敢撒野，我怕那个id给ban的斑竹看见我就ban回来，然后明年的今天，就是我的忌日了。曹哥和PCRfan都来不及给我收尸的说。

all in all, 这个是菜鸟临考前的飞跃篇，嗯，大家看了应该也会很有用处的说。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-3-17 19:24 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

17
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.

“Walnut Grove’s town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC’s fee is still $2,000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ--which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks--has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year’s town survey agreed that they were ‘satisfied’ with EZ’s performance.”

The arguer’s view seems to be sound and convincing at first glance that Walnut Crove town should stick to EZ Disposal rather than turn to ABC Waste even if the former raises its monthly fee for 25% because EZ are offering satisfactory service to the town., which is worth the more money it asks for. However, I’m afraid his argument can hardly bear further consideration since there are several flaws in it.

One seemingly overwhelming advantage of EZ Disposal over ABC Waste is that the former collects trash twice a week while the latter, however, only once. The arguer lays such emphasis on it that gives us the impression that EZ offers double service only for a 25% rise in price compared to ABC Waste. However, we can hardly find any evidence that it’s not redundant for EZ Disposal to do so. In other word, there might not be so much trash as have to been collected twice a week in Walnut Crove. Especially, if the landfill of Walnut Crove is kept under good condition, without the problem of environment contamination, then collection of once a week is enough, which ironically shows the low efficiency of EZ Disposal. It’s absurd to ask people to pay for the low work efficiency with a reason such as double quantity of work.

EZ Disposal’s ordering of additional trucks, on the other hand, is another seemingly powerful reason the arguer present to show EZ will offer better service to the town. But he fails to see the possibility that EZ has to update its trucks, which are old and out of service, rather than add to it’s fleet new trucks. It is unfair if EZ includes this updating fee into the service price, while the people of Walnut Crove wouldn’t see any more additional improvement in the service it provides than those they deserve.

The proportion that 80% respondents are satisfied with EZ’s performance seems to be convincing. However, there are questionable factors: Will the respondents still be satisfied even if the price rises 25%? Have the respondents got the chance to try ABC Waste’s service and thus gave a fair comparison between the two? The arguer obviously ignored these by only focus on the absolute figure.

Everyone likes to get better service on relatively lower price. But when things are not the case, a second consideration with rational analysis, comparison and evaluation is needed to see whether the expensive one really worth it.

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-3-17 21:25 编辑 ]