Arg-42
The following is a letter to the head of the tourism bureau on the island of Tria:
"Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using the beaches. Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term, it will reduce the number of people using the beaches and will raise money for replenishing the sand. Replenishing the sand, as was done to protect buildings on the nearby island of Batia, will help protect buildings along our shores, thereby reducing these buildings' risk of additional damage from severe storms. And since the areas along the shore will be more attractive as a result, the beaches will be preserved and the area's tourist industry will improve over the long term."
【满分范文赏析】
This letter's author recommends charging fees for public access to Tria's beaches as means of raising funds for the purpose of saving Tria's tourist industry. The author reasons that while beach-access fees would reduce the number of beachgoers, it would provide revenue for replenishing beach sand needed to protect nearby buildings. The measures would thereby enhance the area's attractiveness lending to long-term improvement. To support the argument the author indicates that on a nearby island, beach sand was replenished thereby reducing the risk of storm damage to buildings. The argument is not entirely convincing for the following reasons.
【本段结构】
本文采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即C—A—F的开头结构。本段首先概括原文的Conclusion，之后简要提及原文为支持其结论所引用的一系列Assumption及细节，最后给出开头段到正文段的过渡句，指出原文的Flaw，即这些Assumption无法让原文的结论具有说服力。
【本段功能】
作为Argument开头段，本段具体功能就在于发起攻击并概括原文的结论，即为了保护Tria城市的旅游业，需要对使用Tria沙滩的游客采取收费政策。本段接下来提到了原文中为支持之前的Conclusion所提供的证据，尽管收费政策会是当地的游客减少，但是收集来的资金能够填补当地的用于保护临近建筑物的沙滩。此外，临近的岛屿在采取了相同的政策后，当地的沙滩得到了填补因此减少了暴风雨对建筑物的破坏。文章提及这些信息，为是在正文段中对这些Assumption即将进行的具体攻击做铺垫。
First of all, the assumptions regarding the effects of the proposed beach-access fees weaken the argument. The author ignores the possibility that charging fees might deter so many tourists that Tria would be worse off overall or that the vast majority of Tria's tourists and residents alike would happily pay for beach access. In either case, adopting the author's proposal might harm, rather than benefit, Tria's tourist industry in the long run.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第一个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。
【本段功能】
作为正文第一段，本段攻击原文所犯的第一个重要逻辑错误——因果类错误。原文假设通过采用收费政策，能够得到解决沙滩填补问题的资金。但是这样的因果关系并不一定成立，毕竟这个假设忽视了收费政策带来的负面影响。因此，原文的结论不成立。
Also consider the case of nearby Batia where replenishing beach sand has served to protect shoreline buildings. Tria may not be able to achieve the same protective measures due to some geographical difference between the two islands. Perhaps Batia is in a far better position than Tria financially to replenish its sand on a continual basis. In short, the argument fails to present any evidence indicating that the islands are, in all practical purposes, the same and that the proposed measures would have the same desired effect.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第二个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。
【本段功能】
作为正文第二段，本段攻击原文所犯的第二个重要逻辑错误——类比类错误。原文假设适用于Batia岛的政策也能适用于Tria岛。但是这样的类比并不一定成立，因为这两者之间可能存在很多差异性。因此在没有考虑到差异性的情况下，原文的这个假设也是不合理的。
Finally, let’s also take into account the fact that even if replenishing Tria's beach sand is financially feasible and would protect nearby buildings, no evidence present indicates that Tria's tourist industry would be saved. Perhaps Tria's tourist appeal has little or nothing to do with the beach and nearby buildings. For that matter, perhaps Tria's tourist appeal would be greater with fewer buildings along the coast. The author’s argument isn’t compelling because there is no link between the wellbeing of the buildings along the coast to the overall health of the tourist industry.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第三个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。
【本段功能】
作为正文第三段，本段攻击原文所犯的第三个重要逻辑错误——因果类错误。原文假设如果沙滩能够得到填补，那么当地的旅游业也能从中受益。但是，这个假设忽视了能够产生影响的其他因素，设置这两者之间本身就不存在因果关系。因此，原文并不能证明其结论是具有说服力的。
In summary, the argument needs substantiation in order to support the conclusion. To do so, the author must demonstrate that charging beach-access fees would reduce the number of beachgoers, but not to the extent of undermining the goal of raising sufficient funds to maintain an attractive coastal area. The author must also provide clearer evidence that replenishing sand would indeed protect nearby buildings, and that the net result would be the enhancement of Tria's tourist industry.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument结尾段结构，即C—S的结尾结构。首先再次重申原文Conclusion是站不住脚的，接下来给出可以增强原文说服力的合理的Suggestion，包括原文作者需要进一步提供的证据和细节信息等。
【本段功能】
段作为结尾段，具体功能即为总结归纳+提出建议。段落首先再次重申强调原文作者的论证不合理，接下来给出合理的建议：作者必须证明对沙滩游客采取收费的这种政策能够给保护沙滩的资金收集带来实际的正面效果，同时，沙滩的填补和临近建筑物的保护的确能够给当地的旅游业带来积极的作用。不难发现，结尾段总结提出的建议与正文各段中依次攻击的错误遥相呼应，即分别对应了样本类错误和因果类错误，这使全篇文章显得浑然一体。
【满分要素剖析】
【语言表达】
本文的语言使用规范、清晰，词汇也用得准确地道，并使用多变的句式让考官读起来津津有味，这些都是
1) This letter's author recommends…(标志性的Argument开头段引出原文结论的语言表达形式。)The author reasons that… To support the argument the author indicates that… The argument is not entirely convincing for the following reasons.(标志性的指出文章错误的语言表达。整体开头段是标准的C—A—F的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
2) First of all, the assumptions regarding… weaken the argument. The author ignores the possibility that… In either case, adopting the author's proposal might harm, rather than benefit…(标志性的存在其他因素的因果类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
3) Also consider the case of nearby… Tria may not be able to achieve the same protective measures due to some geographical difference between the two islands. Perhaps… In short, the argument fails to present any evidence indicating that the islands are, in all practical purposes, the same and that the proposed measures would have the same desired effect.(标志性的不同个体之间的类比类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
4) Finally, let’s also take into account the fact that even if… no evidence present indicates that… Perhaps… has little or nothing to do with… The author’s argument isn’t compelling because there is no link between… (标志性的并不存在因果关系的因果类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
5) In summary, the argument needs substantiation in order to support the conclusion. To do so, the author must demonstrate that… The author must also provide clearer evidence that…(标志性的Argument结尾段Conclusion-Suggestion体系的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
【逻辑结构】
本文的写作体现出了非常严谨的开头段—正文段1、2、3—结尾段的逻辑体系：
(开头段)This letter's author recommends…
(正文段1)First of all, the assumptions regarding…
(正文段2)Also consider the case of nearby…
(正文段3)Finally, let’s also take into account the fact that even if…
(结尾段)In summary, the argument needs substantiation in order to support the conclusion. To do so, the author must demonstrate that…
特别注意的是，在文章第三段攻击完第二个假设后，在接下来的第四段中，使用了“Even if”来引导让步，即“Finally, let’s also take into account the fact that even if replenishing Tria's beach sand is financially feasible and would protect nearby buildings, no evidence present indicates that Tria's tourist industry would be saved.”，这样的让步能够非常严谨的引出对接下来逻辑错误的攻击，体现了文章严密的整体逻辑分析思路。