Argument官方范文

核心论证方法:

1.          找出隐含假设（并质疑）identify as many of its claims, conclusions, and underlying assumptions as possible；

2.          寻找它因和寻找反例 think of as many alternative explanations and counterexamples as you can；

3.          加条件后讨论 think of what additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the claims；

4.          提出改进方案 ask yourself what changes in the argument would make the reasoning more sound

^同学们以上四点是核心论证方法！！！所有的满分范文中都用到了这四种方法。

^其中，在论证时需要：think of what additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the claims. 这里重要的是加上一个常识性条件后，能意识到，有些情况，是支持原命题的。这一点至关重要，我们是讨论，要求同存异，而不是一味的批驳。

满分作文的模式：essays at the 6 score level that begin by briefly summarizing the argument and then explicitly stating and developing the main points of the critique。先复述题目，然后清晰的表明观点，然后发展。

高分作文的攻击顺序：You might want to organize your critique around the organization of the argument itself, discussing the argument line by line. Or you might want to first point out a central questionable assumption and then move on to discuss related flaws in the argument's line of reasoning.

这里给出了两种攻击顺序，根据我读了一个多月 awintro 的经验来看，一般官方给出的建议总是越靠后的越好越 nb，正如在官方推荐 issue观点的时候总是把平衡观点放在最后。所以这里比较好的方案是先质疑一个核心的假设，然后再按照原文逻辑来搞。

SAMPLE 1

Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller-skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lotswere not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller-skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.

【原题逻辑顺序为：数据显示了对保护装备的需求à展开说明这个数据是怎样显示这样的需求的（即用这个装备有什么效果）à结论：为了达到这个效果我们应该重金买这保护设备。】

[Benchmark 6]

The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is the intent of these products to either prevent accidents from occurring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur. 前两句首先肯定了原命题中值得肯定的地方。这是求同存异的表现。注意这里第一句作者同意原命题的同时，在第二句紧接着就给出了展开的证明。而没有光是罗列观点。However, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other (and potentially more significant) causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear. 再说原命题是存在逻辑漏洞的，即它因。这里并没有展开论证，因为这是全文的中心句，整个文章都在后面给予论证。同时，最后半句给出了论据中的潜在后果。

First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear -- preventative gear (such as light reflecting material) and protective gear (such as helmets). body打头第一段是属于攻击总前提假设的，作者认为这个（即保护性设备和防护性设备的差别）是有必要在讨论一切之前弄清楚的。论证方法为质疑假设，加条件后讨论，提出建议。实际上，这个前提对应的就是开头段的前两句话。深层的含义就是，尽管我在开头对你的某一个部分作了让步似的同意，但是这个同意也是建立在一定的假设基础上的，要是这个假设搞不清楚，哼哼我让不让步还不一定呢！本段就来讨论这个假设基础。Preventative gear is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the "other" is a responsible and caring individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention. Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by another, the skater or some force of nature. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. 这两句分别从两个方面进行了论述，为本段第一句话的论证进行服务，每一方面的具体方法是先定义，再比较。论证方法为加上不同的条件后进行讨论，比如前一句话假定只有防护性装备会怎样，后一句话假定只有保护性装备会怎么样。 The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. 这里提出了作者的建议，即如何通过进一步的完善使原命题更加的有力。These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial. 如果这个问题（保护防护设备的差别）解决了后面的讨论才能继续。所以说，总的来说这一段是讨论了原文一个核心的前提。

The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not. 从本段起，连着的三个自然段就是按照原文逻辑链的顺序进行攻击和质疑。实际上，这三段对应的就是开头段的however之后的话。本段先质疑了人的本质的差异。论证方法是加条件后讨论。It is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution and responsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself. 以上三句话展开证明第一个分支观点，论证方法就是大名鼎鼎的三段论。加入常识性条件。即本身很注意安全的人配戴保护装置à配戴装置后就能少出事故à故本身注意安全才使得少出事故。Also, the statistic above is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are relatively dangerous places to skate in the first place. People who are generally more safety conscious (and therefore more likely to wear gear) may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards. 以上两句展开证明第二个分支观点，论证方法同样为大名鼎鼎的三段论，加上常识性条件。即街道公园本身不太安全à本身注意安全的人会选择安全的地方à来这里的人都是本身不太注意安全的。这里最后一点是我给补充上的，原文没有论证完全，但是基本的框架还是有的。

The statistic also goes not differentiate between severity of injuries. 攻击逻辑链的第二步，受伤的程度没有说清。这里的论证方法核心是质疑隐含假设，加条件后讨论。The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries. 指出原隐含假设。This is certainly not the case. 指出它错了。Also, given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and weekends (when doctors' offices are closed), skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment. 加上人们晚上去滑的人多这个条件后讨论，最终削弱原命题。

Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality (and presumably more expensive) gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear. 攻击逻辑联的第三步，质量好的不一定有用。核心论证方法为列举它因和提出建议。For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same preventative benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating. 简单的t-shirt也能很有用。Before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by individual pieces of gear would be helpful. 建议我们对器材考虑得更加全面些。

The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and potentially saves lives. 强调原文的初衷还是很好的，就好像两个人在那里辩论，范文把原文给说急了，范文怕原文不高兴了，就再哄哄他：别看我骂了这么多，你的初衷还是好的嘛！值得肯定。Before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be made in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the benefits are needed. 范文看原文也不怎么哭了，于是最终还是委婉的表达了自己的建议。 After all, a false confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous asno gear at all. 最后补充论证自己的建议：论证方法为反证法。同时范文在最后吓唬一吓原文，告诉他不这样做的可怕的后果。

分析：

(1)分析原题目中可取之处；指出原文中不足之处；推出论据中的潜在后果。（这里的第一点展开证明，这样虽然没有直接复述题目，但是这三点说完后整个框架就很清楚了）

 (2)正文中第一段质疑核心假设错误（从原题目中的可取之处中寻找，要把它唯一一点正确的东西也给质疑了），后三段按原文逻辑顺序攻击三点，如本文中人的本质à人受的伤的差别à为防止受伤，买质量好的就有用？可以看出，这三点是与原文中三段论式论证环环相扣的。这就是前面第一部分讲解awintro中提到的analytical writing的具体应用。

(3)逻辑方面的论证方法为：寻找并质疑隐含假设，列举它因，加条件（常识性条件，或者限定性条件）后讨论，提出建议。

 (4)在语言方面的论证手法有：分情况讨论，举反例推缪。

(5)最后的时候还是要首先肯定原文的可取之处如初衷好啊，然后指出需要思考的更加完善才行。要是思考的不完善会有什么后果。

SAMPLE 2

The University of Claria is generally considered one of the best universities in the world because of its instructors' reputation, which is based primarily on the extensive research and publishing record of certain faculty members.  In addition, several faculty members are internationally renowned as leaders in their fields.  For example, many of the faculty from the English department are regularly invited to teach at universities in other countries.  Furthermore, two recent graduates of the physics department have gone on to become candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physics.  And 75 percent of the students are able to find employment after graduating.  Therefore, because of the reputation of its faculty, the University of Claria should be the obvious choice for anyone seeking a quality education.

【原题逻辑顺序：UC老师牛àUC学生牛à想牛就选择UC】

[Benchmark 6]

While the University of Claria appears to have an excellent reputation based on the accomplishments and reputations of its faculty, one would also wish to consider other issues before deciding upon this particular institution for undergraduate or graduate training. 首先承认UC的声望看起来确实不错，算是部分的同意了原文的观点，并简短的展开论证说事因为老师牛。随后便指出还有他因，但是并没有展开它因。(留到正文第一段来展开)。The Physics and English departments are internationally known, but these are only two of the areas in which one might study. 这里指出论据的不充足。实际上是在攻击原文的论据逻辑链。Other departments are not listed; is this because no others are worth mentioning, or because no other departments bothered to turn in their accomplishments and kudos to the publicity office? 给出了论证：提出两个问题进行质疑。

The assumption is that because English and Physics have excellent brains in the faculty offices, their teaching skills and their abilities to pass on knowledge and the love of learning to their students are equally laudable(值得赞扬的). BODY打头第一段与开头段第一句话对应，具体提出了他因。同时，还注意到所让步的内容（老师牛学校就牛）仍然是一致的。质疑：老师牛，就能提供牛的教育吗？Unfortunately, this is often not the case. 一针见血的指出不是这么回事。 A prospective student would certainly be advised to investigate thoroughly the teaching talents and attitudes of the professors, the library and research facilities, the physical plant of the departments in which he or she was planning to study, as well as the living arrangements on or off campus, and the facilities available for leisure activities and entertainment. 具体论证：还有其他的因素决定教育的水平的。论证方法为列举他因。这里的论证给人的感觉就是列的东西多，而且细。

This evaluation of the University of Claria is too brief, and too general. 这里对于原文中逻辑链中的论据不足进行证明。实际上就是和开头段后两句话（只有两个系不够）相对应，进一步展开进行证明原文的论据怎么不充分，我们要全面评估UC除了只知道提供的两个系的信息外还要知道哪些。Nothing is mentioned about the quality of overall education; it only praises the accomplishments of a few recent graduates and professors. 这里属于复述原文，立好靶子做好准备开始攻击。More important than invitations to teach elsewhere, which might have been engineered by their own departmental heads in an attempt to remove them from the campus for a semester or two, is the relationship between teacher and student.  Are the teaching faculty approachable?  Are they helpful?  Have they an interest in passing on their knowledge?  Are they working for the future benefit of the student or to get another year closer to retirement?  How enthusiastic are the students about the courses being taught and the faculty members who teach those classes?  Are there sufficient classes available for the number of students?  Are the campus buildings accessible; how is the University handling all those cars?  Is the University a pleasant, encouraging, interesting, challenging place to attend school?  What are its attitudes about education, students, student ideas and innovations, faculty suggestions for improvement? 一开始攻击就一连问了十几个问题，显得很雄辩，这里问了这么多问题，核心只有一个，学校老师学生之间三角关系到底怎么样。具体论证是先说师生关系（老师对待学生怎么样，学生对待老师怎么样），再说学校和学生（学校给学生提供了哪些便利），最后说学校和老师和学生的关系（老师通过学校为了提高给学生的教育提出了什么意见么）.可以说是层层递进，还是很有章法的！论证手法为列举他因。）

What about that 75% employment record? 这里质疑了逻辑链中的另一个论据，即毕业生找工作的数据也能推出学校牛。核心论证方法为质疑假设，提出建议。Were those students employed in the field of their choice, or are they flipping burgers(烙牛肉饼) and emptying wastebaskets while they search for something they are trained to do. 这里论证方法为质疑假设（是否是工作在喜欢的专业），我观察到这里并没有给出质疑后的结果的展开。也许作者认为展开后的结果是不言而喻的所以就不再展开细说了。这就是作者大牛之处，他懂得驾驭知道什么地方说到多少就够了，所以越是大牛的文章就越是短。这个文章就很短。而对于我们来说，它的论证思路是一定要接受，但是为了保险起见，还是把每个论点发展完全比较好，比如在这里加上：要是他们不在自己的最喜欢专业工作，说明他们还是没有足够的实力让自己喜欢的工作接受自己，从而说明母校的教育也没有那么牛啊。我们论证的越充分，显然就越有把握拿高分。A more specific statement about the employability of students from this University is needed in order to make the argument forceful. 提出了建议，使得论证更有力。

The paragraph given merely scratches the surface of what must be said about this University in order to entice students and to convince them that this is the best place to obtain a quality education. 这篇文章在最后没有肯定原文的初衷，而是不留情面的批评！这是要看具体题目的，像这样的广告，本来就没有多么高尚的目的。而上一篇范文人家不管逻辑有多差，但人家总是抱着善良的一颗心，为了保护大家的生命安全啊！所以说，我们对于原命题的立意心里要有数。Much more work is needed by the public relations department before this can be made into a four-color brochure and handed out to prospective students. 最后还是提出了整体的宏观的建议改进意见。

SAMPLE 3

"According to a recent report from our marketing department, fewer people attended movies produced by Silver Screen during the past year than in any other year. And yet the percentage of generally favorable comments by movie reviewers about specific Silver Screen movies actually increased during this period. Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers; so the problem lies not with the quality of our movies but with the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available.  Silver Screen should therefore spend more of its budget next year on reaching the public through advertising and less on producing new movies."

【原文逻辑顺序：看电影观众减少à评论人好评增加à观众不关注评论à我们要增加广告费投资并减少电影投资】

[Benchmark 6]

The argument presented above is relatively sound, however, the author fails to recognize all the elements necessary to evaluate his situation.这句话也很摸版化，但是重点分析一下这里evaluate his situation，读了后面几段，我们会知道全是在考虑对外界的评估的。所以这一句话就指明了论证的核心，可以说统领全文。The idea that more money be invested in advertising may be a helpful one, but perhaps not because people are unaware of the current reviews. 这句话实际上是在进行让步，承认了广告还是有用的，但是原因不同。点明了论证主题句，下面几段全是围绕着让广告更有效这个主题来写的，正如官方评语中就提到了本文有个明显的中心句，就是本句。To clarify, it may be necessary to advertise more in order to increase sales, however that could be due to many circumstances such as a decrease in the public's overall attendance, an increase in the cost of movies, or a lack of trust in the opinions of the reviewers. 这句话是对主题句的补充，提供了几种具体的他因的论证方向，更重要的作用是，把主题句给打拆开几个小的分枝论点，从而方便下面的讨论。

The advertising director first needs to determine the relative proportion of movie goers that choose to see Silver Screen films.第一个需要对外界进行的评估就是人群中选择SS的比例。That will help him to understand his market share. If the population in general is attending less, then he may still be out-profiting his competitors, despite his individual sales decrease. In fact, his relative sales could be increasing. 这几句话是对分枝论点的三段式演绎，即总体人数减少，她有可能还有竞争力，只要他的相对份额更多，竞争能力强，有可能他挣的更多。  Determining where he stands in his market will help him to create and implement an action plan. 最终的an action plan不就是广告吗，在段末尾很明显（尽管换了个词）的点了一下题。

Another important thing to consider is the relative cost of attending movies to the current standard of living. 第二个需要考虑的就是当前的人们平均生活水平。If the standard of living is decreasing, it may contribute to an overall decrease in attendance. In that case, advertising could be very helpful, in that a clever campaign could emphasize the low cost of movies as compared to many other leisure activities. This could offset financial anxieties of potential customers. 这几句话是环环相扣的，论证方法为加条件后讨论，三段论式演绎，即人们生活水平降低==〉总体上看电影的人变少==〉广告强调电影最低价会很有效==〉广告这时是很有效的。经过一番的推导，最终还是指向了中心观点，就是广告还是很有帮助的。这是又一次的很好的点题。我们仔细比较二三两段就会发现，在论证结构上有着很好的对应，是非常工整的对仗。

Finally, it is important to remember that people rarely trust movie reviewers. 第三个需要考虑的就是人们的信任问题。这里通过论证使得最后推导出中心观点的后半句话，至此全文的逻辑链论证就比较完善了。For that reason, it is important that the films appeal to the populus, and not critics alone. The best advertisement in many cases is word of mouth. No matter what critics say, people tend to take the opinions of friends more seriously.  This supports continual funding to produce quality movies that will appeal to the average person. 最后通过三段论的演绎，使得广告效应逐渐向拿出钱真正搞点好电影这个观点上过渡。我认为这是全文的亮点。触及到了事物的本质的改变才是最有意义的，使得在前两段的论证的基础上，通过本文的论证使得讨论更加的深入，更加的务实。

There is no reason that silver screen should not spend more on advertisement, however, there is reason to continue to invest in diverse, quality films. 本文的满分的另一个有利保障就是最后一段的精准的概括，可以说，最后一段总结了全文的态度，使得考官看完最后一段能迅速找到全文的论证核心。这是有必要的。Furthermore, the company must consider carefully what it chooses to emphasize in its advertisement. 这一段同时给出了建议改进方案。最后，本文实在是相当的短，之所以这么短，是因为省去了开头复述原题，省去了单列一段质疑让步的假设，比如说这里的让步是广告是有用的，所以就要质疑在什么时候是有用的，如果再加上这样一段外加演绎的话就会更好。同样，这篇文章语言十分的简洁，基本上没有废话，没有所谓的亮点词句，这也许是给我们的启发，告诉我们更应该关注什么：立论点以及安排方式以及论证方式。这三个论点的安排是：市场规模à人民生活标准à人不相信评论家à人对于质量的要求，顺序是从外在条件到内在条件。

SAMPLE 4

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

【原题逻辑顺序：6月前F提高限速àF事故升高àE没提高限速反而事故略减少àF要想减少事故就不能提高限速】

The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. 这一句话指出原文存在逻辑问题，这里用的语言很简单。而不是北美范文中有时堆彻了一堆放之四海皆为准的无关痛痒的话。很明显，官方的意思是说这样的客套话一定要说，但是一定要用最简洁的形式来说，而同时那些具体问题具体分析性的语言则要详细的说明白，说清楚。By making a comparison of the region of Forestville, the town with the higher speed limit and therefore automobile accidents, with the region of Elmsford, an area of a lower speed limit and subsequently fewer accidents, the argument for reducing Forestville's speed limits in order to decrease accidents seems logical. 这个开头真的非常巧，因为他用一句话达到了两句话的效果，即同时复述题目并指出问题在哪，而没有像北美一样说结论是什么证据是什么证据再说不能支持结论。设想一下如果我们是考官的话看到这样的一个开头得到了一个什么信息呢：此考生已经完全读懂题目了，并且他对原文的逻辑顺序也已经掌握了。深一点层次来说：aw考试考得是我们的分析能力，这是重点。虽然官方说明也曾经强调理解原文很重要，但是终归理解能力并不是考试的重点。所以比较好的做法是：分析题目的脉络，写出分析性的概括。这里没有必要单独再复述题目了因为在分析中已经暗含了原文的信息。这里还有一点值得注意：为什么要在第二句话的最前面用comparison这个词呢，这是有讲究的！原文的论证核心就是比较，而这里将此词提到最前面一是说这是原文的逻辑关联，二是暗示我下面要做的就是围绕着此比较而进行的。有点类似于主题句的主干提前。这个词真的是令人发指的重要，看到后面你就知道了。

However, the citizens of Forestville are failing to consider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidents after the raise in speed limit. 这一段是质疑一个假设的前提。从前面的几个范文的分析我们可以看出来，正文body首段质疑的都是作者让步的前提，那么这里的让步在哪里呢，开头段并没有提到阿。确实没有在第一段提到让步。但是别着急，在最后一段的第一句，出现了让步（即since后面的两点理由），这不就又对应上了吗！让步说F这些市民可能是因为自己的利益或者保护自己的安全才建议取消限速的。那么这里的前提就是是F因为限速才使事故增加的。这一段将这个前提狠狠的质疑了一番。论证方法为列举他因。Such alternatives may include the fact that there are less reliable cars traveling the roads in Forestville, or that the age bracket(年龄段) of those in Elmsford may be more conducive to driving safely.  It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville than there are in Elmsford. In addition, the citizens have failed to consider the geographical and physical terrain of the two different areas.  Perhaps Forestville's highway is in an area of more dangerous curves, sharp turns, or has many intersections or merging points where accidents are more likely to occur. 列举了三点他因，有两点值得注意：一是这里作者前两点都没有详细展开，但这是不是意味着对于比较常识性的例子不用展开呢，不是！同志们，展开并不只有三段论式展开才是展开，谁说这里没有展开呢？作者实际上已经通过定语同位语进行展开了！！比如younger, inexperienced,和elderly, unsafe就是互相补充阿，所以说我们在给出常识性的例子时，要注意通过修饰语的方式进行暗中的展开。判断我们证明的是否严谨是否充足，可以这样：完全只是用我们提供的信息来推，能不能推出最后的结果。而最后一点展开的则较为充分，这里看来是因为最后一点有点过于宽泛，必须要进行详细具体解释才行。更深一层次的来说作者对于例子的安排也是有详有略，给人错落有致的感觉，美。另外一点值得注意的就是，这三个论证中无一例外的都进行了EF的比较，照应了开头给出的comparison这个词，作者兑现了自己在开头的暗示。It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area. 这里作者的论证向前进了一步：前面提出了很多的他因，但光提出他因是不够的，我们心里一定要想着提出他因是干什么的。这里指出了他因究竟如何来利用，使得证明原文。即应该多考虑一下我所提出的他因，而不是限速。Elmsford may be an area of easier driving conditions where accidents are less likely to occur regardless of the speed limit. 这和上一句是相照应的，属于对比性的论证，刚才说F有了他因所以不是限速能解决，这里有说了E也许也是他因才使得情况稍好。整个段落是多么整齐的对仗阿！EF两地的对比无处不在，而又那么的工整！作者在开头第二句话的Comparison一词真的是统领全文的阿！正所谓指哪打哪。

A six-month period is not a particularly long time frame for the citizens to determine that speed limit has influenced the number of automobile accidents in the area. 从这一段开始攻击原文逻辑链。本段有四个分论点，本来应该写四段的。（至于为什么没有写三段，我想是因为awintro中说我们可以随意的选择段落的数量，并不会影响最后的结果。但是，这样的话前提是阅卷人有足够的耐心。所以为了保险起见，让人看着更为清楚些，我还是建议大家分开写）这里第一个攻击的就是6个月时间够不够。It is mentioned in the argument that Elmsford accidents decreased during the time period. 这一句话的目的在于复述原文条件，立起靶子。从这里开始攻击第二点，即天气的影响。This may have been a time(有段时间了), such as during harsh weather conditions, when less people were driving on the road and therefore the number of accidents decreased. 对E的论证采用的是经典三段论，即天气差à人不出去à事故少。However, Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced by employment or other requirements, were unable to avoid driving on the roads. 再次进行了EF对比，通过coerced后面的从句进行推演，属于小展开。也足够充分。Again(再者), the demographics of the population are important. 这里对逻辑链的第三点进行了攻击。即人口数量的问题。It is possible that Elmsford citizens do not have to travel far from work or work from their home, or do not work at all. 先说E的人可能少。论证方法是加条件后讨论。Are there more people in Forestville than there were six months ago? If so, there may be an increased number of accidents due to more automobiles on the road, and not due to the increased speed limits. 再说F的人可能多。论证方法同要是加条件后讨论。  Also in reference to the activities of the population, 最后攻击逻辑链的第四点，即人们活动的时间。（品味一下本段四个逻辑错误的安排顺序，时间à天气à人数à人的活动，看似无关，还是很有讲究的阿，这不正是从外在因素到内在因素吗）it is possible that Forestville inhabitants were traveling during less safe times of the day, such as early in the morning, or during twilight.  Work or family habits may have encouraged citizens to drive during this time when Elmsford residents may not have been forced to do so. 第四点的论证同样是采用了两者的对比。看来作者真是说到做到阿，竟然没有一次论证没有对比的！！论证方法为加条件后讨论。

Overall, the reasoning behind decreasing Forestville's speed limit back to its original seems logical as presented abovesince the citizens are acting in their own best interests and want to protect their safety. 原来让步在这呢！其实作者心里一直有数，只是没写出来。但是在正文body的第一段已经就其假设进行了讨论。我想我们不是作者这样的牛人，这样的让步还是很有必要在第一段体现出来的。However, before any final decisions are made about the reduction in speed limit, the citizens and officials of Forestville should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for the increased number of accidents over the six-month period as compared to Elmsford. 最后提出了建议。我们看到作者对于文章的立意把握得很好，要是换我们来写，可能会写限速怎么不好啊。而这文章中限速不管怎么说总是有好的一面，只是常识！所以作者的立意为：不是说限速不好，而是说要考虑全。引申一下，我们一定要对文章的立意有个把握。文章无非就三种立意，一种是好的（就像这样的为了安全的（比如skate范文）），一种就是不好不坏的（就像为了利益的为了利润（什么挣钱多啊）），一种是不好的（就像有个说不应该取消安全带规定，还有诋毁某人的）。这三种立意的写法可是完全不同的阿！对于第一种，切记要委婉！最好就是避而不谈，而说应该考虑更全面。对于后面两种，嘿嘿，就得狠点了，尤其是最后一种，就是谴责。后面的文章我会给出分析。

SAMPLE 5

"Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland.  But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue.  If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields.  There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."

【原文逻辑顺序：五年前投票决定某地保持原生态à原生态可用来做公园让大家受益à现在有人建议盖学校à盖学校就要改此地为操场à建操场是唯一能此地还保持原生态的方案（暗含假设为操场就是原生态）】

This letter to the editor begins by stating the reasons the residents of Morganton voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state. The letter states that the entire community could benefit from an undeveloped parkland. The residents of the town wanted to ensure that no shopping centers or houses would be built there. This, in turn, would provide everyone in the community with a valuable resource, a natural park. 这里是复述题目的前半部分，即五年前人们的看法以及理由。基本上没有加入任何分析。

The letter then continues by addressing the issue of building a school on the land.  The author reasons that this would also benefit the entire community as a natural parkland since much of the land would be devoted to athletic fields.  The author of the letter comes to the conclusion that building a school on the land would be the best thing for everyone in the community. 这里复述题目的后半部分，即现在要盖学校，作者认为盖学校会有什么效果，以及盖学校是唯一的办法。同志们，第一第二段都是单纯的复述题目，只是稍加了一点层次感，但是几乎没有加上任何分析，以及态度。这实际上是这篇范文的败笔之处。后面的官方评语就是这样说的，说开头段太犹豫了（评语第一段），并说可以做得更好的（评语最后一段）。所以说这篇文章的开头是考官所不喜欢的，但是为什么也能得满分呢，因为他后面的论证确实很充分，另外也是因为本题本身也真的很难读懂，写到这份上已经不容易了。Awintro里面说了，最后的成绩是看整个文章的整体效果，那么这篇文章虽然有缺点，但还有更大的优点，所以总体是很好的，所以得了满分。从六篇范文的评语里也可以看出来，在这6个满分文章中，有些文章是次满分的，有些文章是满分的，而有些文章是超满分的。我们要做的就是找出每篇文章的优点和缺点，最后汇集优点避免缺点写出一个到处全是优点的文章，那不就是超超超满分了。当然了，这是扯淡，不可能到处都是优点，只能尽量吧。言归正传，这文章的开头应该改进成在简短一点复述题目，至少并成一段，然后加上自己的观点，到底哪里值得后面讨论。

This letter is a one-sided argument about the best use of the land known as Scott Woods. 这里开始分析了，先说是片面的。论证手法为加条件后讨论。The author may be a parent whose child would benefit from a new school, a teacher who thinks a school would boost the community, or just a resident of Morganton. 这里先加上不同的条件，讨论不同的后果，很好的手法阿！你可能会问，他哪里讨论了？没发展讨论哪！其实，当假定作者为教师时，已经在教师的后面的定语从句中给出了充分的演绎，这就是小发展，这就是awintro里强调无数次的cogently，发展于无形之间，我们在写作文的时候也要学会噢。  Regardless of who the author is, there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore. 这一句话很重要，把前面的假设的变量给排除了，为后面的论证扫清了障碍。

Using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for a natural parkland. 这里指出的是文章的核心的最大的错误，即学校操场不等于原生态。这种论证顺序和其他的不同，没有让步，也没有质疑假设。总体的论证顺序为先讨论一个大的问题，然后再讨论与此大问题相关联的一些小问题。同志们可能要问了这是什么套路阿？其实awintro也推荐过这样的套路。”The readers know that a writer can earn a high score by analyzing and developing several points in a critique or by identifying a central flaw in the argument and developing that critique extensively.”以上摘自awintro中的一段。While all the members of the community could potentially benefit from a parkland, only a percentage of the population would realistically benefit from a new school. 这里是分支观点，把原命题给拆分成两个部分以供下面讨论。  The author fails to recognize people like the senior citizens of the community.  What interest do they have in a new school? It only means higher taxes for them to pay.  They will likely never to and utilize the school for anything. 先说学校操场怎么样（有人不受益）。On the other hand, anyone can go to a park and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness. 再说原生态公园怎么样。（每人受益）The use of the land for a school would destroy the benefit of a park for everyone. 基于以上两点，这句话得出了结论：建学校操场会不如原生态公园好。这个论证还是三段论！In turn, it would supply a school only to groups of people in exactly the right age range, not too young or too old, to reap the benefits. 上一句结论的正话反说。本句话很关键！为后一段埋下伏笔。属于逻辑过渡句。

Another point the author stresses is that the use of the land for things like athletic fields somehow rationalizes the destruction of the park. 本段是上一段的延续，还是围绕着中心问题进行讨论。我们注意到上一段说学校不能使每一个人受益，只能使其中一部分适龄年轻人收益，这一段就问了：这些适龄年轻人真的受益了吗？所以说是上一段的一个深究，论证的很深入。本段论证方法为列举反例。What about children who don't play sports? Without the school, they could enjoy the land for anything. A playing field is a playing field.  Children are not going to go out there unless they are into sports. There are many children in schools who are not interested in or are not able to play sports.  This is yet another group who will be left out of the grand benefits of a school that the author talks about. 这里的论证一下去，原文彻底傻了，原来就算是学生也不能够就一定受益阿！这种论证方式，属于递进式攻击。其内涵的逻辑联系之紧密，让人不由得赞叹！牛！这两段是文章最出彩的地方，也是文章在开头不好的情况下能力挽狂澜得到满分的秘密武器。

The author's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this...""is easily arguable. 最后文章再质疑了结论的可靠性。 The destruction of Scott Woods for the purpose of building a school would not only affect the ambience(环境，气氛) of Morganton, it would affect who would and would not be able to utilize the space. 先说建学校这事压根就不靠谱。为什么呢？后面给出了解释。If the residents as a whole voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state, this argument will not sway their decision. The use of the land for a school will probably benefit even less people than a shopping center would. The whole purpose of the vote was to keep the land as an asset for everyone. 这里通过和购物中心比，得出了结论说当初的投票就是为了大家。这个论证也是全文的亮点，因为他是用原文的条件来攻击原文，它认为购物中心的收入已经是相当高了，但即使这么高的收入也没有原生态公园给每个人带来的收益高，更何况是收益还不如购物中心的学校呢。这里更深层次的隐含意思是：购物中心是所有投资中利润最高的，这都不行，所以任何的改动都是不行的。就必须要保持原生态公园。这里作者的思想多么的锐利。一下子就揪住了原文的一项自我矛盾的地方。The only way to do this is to keep it in an undeveloped state.  Using the land for a school does not accomplish this. 最终提出了作者的建议。

SAMPLE 6

A recent survey of dental patients showed that people who use Smile-Bright toothpaste are most likely to have capped teeth -- artificial but natural-looking protective coverings placed by dentists on individual teeth.  Those people who had begun using Smile-Bright toothpaste early in life were more likely to have capped teeth than were people who had begun using Smile-Bright later in life.  In addition, those who reported brushing their teeth more than twice a day with Smile-Bright toothpaste were more likely to have caps on their teeth than were those who reported brushing with Smile-Bright less frequently.  Therefore, people wishing to avoid having their teeth capped should not use Smile-Bright toothpaste.

【原文逻辑顺序：用SB的最易带牙套à早用比晚用SB的易带牙套，每天用两次SB的更易带牙套à想不带牙套就不用SB。】

注：这篇文章大家一看肯定特别有亲切感，因为这和新东方摸版和北美范文摸版非常的像！甚至，我怀疑，这就是后两者的原型。这些研究考试的人发现这篇文章具有很好的操作性，并看上去结构特别清晰。所以也就照葫芦画瓢。如果是这样的话，研究这个原版的价值就不言而喻了。

[Benchmark 6]

The argument contains several facets that are questionable. 段首句指出存在问题，同样没有过多的修饰，简洁明快。使文章迅速转移到后面的实质性分析。First, the reliability and generalizability of the survey are open to question. 指出第一个问题是调查类问题，并具体说出了是样本可信度和样本代表性，实际上这和后面的论证是对应的。In addition, the argument assumes a correlation amounts to a causal relationship. 指出第二个问题，是因果关系。 The argument also fails to examine alternative explanations. 指出第三个问题，没有提出上面因果关系的他因。 I will discuss each of these facets in turn.第一段简洁明了，三个攻击点统领下面三段。这里对原文的复述似乎并不详细。因为原文的逻辑链很简单，作者不用向我们证明他读懂了，我们也知道他肯定读懂了。不像第五个范文那样，读个原题就得半天。实际上，这里的重点放在了后面的分析上，同时在后面的分析中也包含了复述原题中的每一个条件。

In evaluating the evidence of the survey, one must consider how the survey was conducted. 第一点：考虑调查类问题。分为两个分支论点，一个是有倾向的问题，一个是被调查者的代表性。 If the questions were leading or if the survey relied on self-reports, the results might be unreliable -- people might just respond with the expected answer. 这里论证是否问卷中有loaded问题，方法为加条件后讨论。One must also consider how broad the survey was. 这里论证被调查者的代表性。方法还是加条件后讨论，三段式论证. If the survey was limited to a few patients of a certain dentists, the results might be attributable to those particular individuals and that particular dentists. Hence, the generalization drawn might not apply to most people. 这又是典型的三段式论证：如果只是个别医生的个别病人à有可能归因于是个别现象à得到的结论无法推广到整体。In addition, even if the survey was broader, one must consider whether it was limited in certain ways. 看到这里，一下子就想起了新东方，这正是他们极力推荐的层层让步式论证，后面一段也是这样的论证。论证方法为列举他因。For example, were the survey respondents old people? Was the survey limited to a certain city or geographic region? Factors such as these could explain the survey results and could undermine the generalizability of the survey results.举了两个他因，注意到这里用的是问句，官方范文是很喜欢用问句的。

Even if one accepts the survey results, the argument remains questionable. 作了一下让步，开始攻击因果关系不成立。The argument assumes that the correlation between the use of SMILEBRIGHT and capped teeth means that SMILE BRIGHT causes the need for capped teeth. 这里就复述题目了，同时也是立起靶子，等待攻击。But the argument fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion.指出没有证据显示有因果关系。先打拆开关系。

In addition, the argument fails to consider the possibility that people who already have capped teeth might prefer SMILEBRIGHT as a toothpaste because it works better on capped teeth.这里举出了个他因，甚至有点想逆转原来的因果关系的意思，从而使已经打拆开的因果关系分的更加清楚。

Finally, the argument's author fails to rule out alternative explanations.这里继续打拆上一段打开的因果关系，提出了他因，就像往伤口上撒一把盐。打个比方，女生家长为了不让女儿和一个男生在一起，就先把他两个给隔离起来，然后最狠的就是，给那个男生找一个巨棒巨棒的新女朋友。For instance, people who brush their teeth more than twice a day might be those who are prone to the need to have their teeth capped. 举出第一种可能性。Weak结论（一天两次更易带牙套）。It might also be the case that starting with SMILEBRIGHT early in life damages the teeth so that capped teeth will be needed later. 举出第二种可能性。Strengthen原结论（早用早带牙套）的. It also might be the case that SMILEBRIGHT users tend to be the kind of people who are excessively concerned with the appearance of their teeth, perhaps they are actors, and so are the kind of people who might, sooner or later, want to have their teeth capped anyway.举出第三种可能。论证方法为加条件后讨论，讨论采用三段式。

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. 这句话很经典，摸版性很强。The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the correlation is indeed a causal relationship -- that using the toothpaste actually causes the need for capped teeth. 给出第一条建议是针对没有因果关系的那段的。It could be further improved by ruling out alternative explanations for the supposed causal relationship. 给出的第二条建议是针对因果关系中提供他因的那段。

总的来看，这里的提建议的方式以及位置都和新东方和北美范文很像。最后，我们发现这文章所指出的逻辑错误都是大错误，那种脊梁骨似的错误，而对于小错误，比如他们report则不予讨论，看得出来，官方的意思是，无论什么文章，都最优先挑核心逻辑链中的重点错误，小错误能挑出来更好，但没有也没关系，前提是大错误都挑出来了并且论证充分。本文与前面的文章的差别之处就在于，很难找到文章的中心思想，只是罗列了错误并独立的分析，过于平淡，而没有对于文章的核心错误的把握。

第三部分：总结

1、开头模式

awintro里说要简单的复述一下题目，通过这6篇满分文章可以看出，单纯复述是不够的。我们需要的是，分清文章的逻辑结构，并考虑哪些是合理的，哪些是不合理的。

写的时候最好先表达出让步的信息以及论据，然后重点指出存在问题的信息以及文中相应的论据（没有考虑其他原因，没有考虑其他因素，论据不足）。这里的错误不要展开，也不要过于笼统，最好用几个文中的关键词来统领后面的讨论，也能避免开头段空洞的弊病。

2、正文body模式

从安排顺序上来说，比较好的做法是：

先质疑让步的前提，即讨论一切的基础（如果有调查，这里就攻击调查）；然后论证在主要逻辑链上的忽略的他因；

然后如果时间允许的话，就攻击细节上的东西（从文中的论据不足入手，这里的细节最好是与上一段的主要逻辑链上的错误相粘连的，可以看作是上一段的延续和引申，末尾还可以加上极端反例或者文中自相矛盾，从而进行穷追不舍的打击）；

最后，从改进方案上入手，分析如何才能更好的改进，这里最好是对原文进行升华，贴近立意的实质，并以一种包容的态度。

& ^5 @6 U+ O, \( b其中，罗列细节上的东西的安排顺序，本着一个原则：从外在因素到内在因素到事物的本质。

3、结尾段模式

结尾实际上是最重要的，因为我们总是能够从结尾段落清晰的看到作者的核心思想。关于如何定出核心思想，我在下面第五点中进行解释。

4 \- @3 r7 ~, w+ h2 Z- k4 a这里有必要解释一下，除了最后一篇文章之外，前五篇文章都有很清晰的中心思想，正文所有的段落都是为这个中心思想而服务，在论证中不是每个错误都论证（实际上在一篇550字的文章中也很难做到），他们只选取与中心思想有关的东西，而放弃了一些相对细枝末节的错误。同志们，满分范文绝不是把所有的错误拼凑到一起。

4、正文论证方法

平均每篇文章正文段为3.0段。

很明显可以看出来，加条件后讨论是论证的核心方法！关于这种方法有三点要说明的：

 7 y, b( r! J/ X3 Y1 r+ c第一，所加的条件分为四种不同情况：倾向性条件，即某些特例，为的是推出我们想要的结果；分类性条件，即我们把原来的问题是用于事物的不同方面，从而具体问题具体分析，在这种论证过程中可能有的部分支持原命题有的部分反对；常识性条件，即先试图找出原文中的假设，再举出常识与之相矛盾来进行反对；原题条件，即找出原题中的原文，经过与原文自身其他的条件推演最终反对原题的结论，使之自相矛盾。

第二，所有的加条件后讨论均要通过三段论式的逻辑推演，列出大前提小前提，最后给出结论。这里在形式上可以多种多样：可以三句话，也可以通过修饰语如同位语定语从句等形式。要丰富多变才行，不然就呆板。另外在架构上，当存在对称两者时一定要进行对比论证；当存在非对称的两者时，要构建起递进关系进行攻击。（即形式上的让步式攻击）

/ w/ Z' y$ o& u8 y8 e$ B: [第三，所有的论证最终都要指向中心思想，指向事物的本质。

6 V: I( O2 b$ t, Y7 f1 i其他还有两种论证方法：

 * B5 K3 D# M* W% ?: Y列举他因，主要用于攻击因果链的不成立、不充要。

举出极端反例，主要用于在论证中的递进一步的攻击，乘胜追击。

2 o. O" }  B6 }. B) x3 F) t8 X需要注意的是：每当分析出于原文结果矛盾之后，一定要记得提出建议。

 5、文章的立意

我们在论证中心中要有数，知道论证的最终目的是什么，这就是文章的立意，文章的灵魂。比较忌讳的是带着根棒子看文章，哪里不对就一棒子打下去，狂骂人家不对，然后一走了之，剩下伤心的原文在那里哭鼻子。另外，对于第6篇文章没有中心思想这个事实，我个人是觉得比较遗憾，如果能像其他5篇那样有清晰的立意就会更好了，个人意见。

5 r$ ~" Y/ O( n  P1 n如何立意？我们对原文的东西要求同存异，对于合理的要肯定，对于不合理的要分析哪里不合理，如何使更合理。我们要的是否定之否定，使得事物在螺旋中成长，即使它不对也要尽量的使它发挥积极的作用，从而不断的完善，不断的严谨。

/ n/ {! B* o  z& r& y. ^: H总的来说，要让人感觉到我们是有教养的，我们是善良的，我们分析这个文章是为了使它更好，我们提出的建议是为了能真正解决广大人民群众的切身利益的。

6、文章字数 

可以看出，最多的624字，最少的347字。经过统计，平均字数为498字，（标准差为93.33）所以说，500字左右是比较理想的文章长度。至于论坛上众说纷纭的是否写得越多就字数越高的问题，我想说一下我的看法：写多少字与分数没有任何的因果关系。这是347字的满分作文所告诉我们的。关键的是能够准确的找到核心错误，以及在核心问题上论证的是否充分。第二位才是是否全面对所有大大小小的错误进行论证，从我的直觉来看，这一部分有更好，没有也照样有希望得满分，前提是上面一点做到了。

   

第三部分：我的习作（大家狂拍啊）选取了普遍认为比较难的红肉这题，嘿嘿，主要目的是为了用上前面分析的结论，所以我写的时候尽量避免任何模版的痕迹

TOPIC: ARGUMENT142 - The article entitled 'Eating Iron' in last month's issue of Eating for Health reported that a recent study found a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. Further, it is well established that there is a link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease, and red meat is high in iron. On the basis of the study and the well-established link between red meat and heart disease, we can conclude that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, then, is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.

字数：600字左右

The link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease appears to be rational, for it is well established as mentioned in the argument. However, the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, cited from a recent study, may mask other factors which also likely to cause the correlation between red meat and heart disease, and, if true, may mislead the direction of the research.

% r9 i! F' y# _- cThe information of the study provided, such as the respondents’ situation and their natural heritage(天然遗传性), is insufficient to justify the correlation, considering that is a root of the argument.As for the respondents, could they represent the entire group of people? Old people, with the increased risk of many kinds of common disease -- owing to(因为) the worsen condition of health, could possibly increase the risk of heart disease as well. Knowing that in some cases heart disease derives from genetic heritage; it is obvious for such kind of people suffers from heart disease, on account of gene, rather than high levels of iron. Without any specific situation of the respondents, the argument could not convince us that it includes all kinds of people, range from young to old, and free of(免于，没有) genetic heritage. In addition,during the process of the study, it is not clear that what the diet, with high levels of iron acquired by respondents, is. Does the diet contains the iron within a particular compound, which would make it difficult to be absorbed, or just the element of iron, which could easily get in?

; c: n$ w- v* zEven assuming the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is existed, the conclusion that such correlation serve as a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease, is logically flawed. The writer makes an assumption that the red meat, which contains iron as claimed, is equal to any diet contained iron, like the one that respondents have. Perhaps this is not the case. Common sense informs us that, in terms of the function and the effect, iron involved in different compounds or just the element is quite diverged. Is the iron in red meat existing as the form such as compound very different from just the element of iron? If so, a survey to research this particular form of iron in the red meat and its correlation with heart disease is necessary.

Besides iron, other elements or compounds in the red meat could also have a impact on the respondents. It is critical to clear that how many compounds and elements exist in the red meat, and most importantly, how they function. Even a fine quantity of these, could impact on the respondents. It is possible that one or several non-iron compounds or elements in the red meat caused the heart disease. Also, it is entirely possible that, the way they cook and the container of the red meat, lead to heart disease. That is to say, maybe there are some heart-disease-related elements on the inside surface of the container, and it is cooked so thoroughly for a long time that these elements have taken off from the container and immerged to the red meat. In that case, the increased risk of heart disease may ascribe to these, other than iron.

Although the correlation between the red meat and the heart disease is well established, we should investigate more details about elements and compounds within the red meat. Without ruling out the influence of these, we could not conclude that the iron contained in the red meat is the cause, which would mislead our effort of research and waste our funding, time and even lives.