Arg-135
The data from a survey of high school math and science teachers show that in the district of Sanlee many of these teachers reported assigning daily homework, whereas in the district of Marlee, most science and math teachers reported assigning homework no more than two or three days per week. Despite receiving less frequent homework assignments, Marlee students earn better grades overall and are less likely to be required to repeat a year of school than are students in Sanlee. These results call into question the usefulness of frequent homework assignments. Most likely the Marlee students have more time to concentrate on individual assignments than do the Sanlee students who have homework every day. Therefore teachers in our high schools should assign homework no more than twice a week.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The speaker argues that if the state board of education reduced the frequency of homework assigned, performance overall would improve. To support this assertion the speaker cites a statewide survey of math and science teachers. According to the survey, students in the Marlee district, who are assigned homework no more than once per week, achieve better grades and are less likely to repeat a school year than students in the Sanlee district, who are assigned homework every night. The evidence presented provides little credible support for the speaker's assertion.
【此段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即：C – E - F的开头结构，首句概括原文的C(Conclusion)。接下来的一句话概括了原文为了支持他的结论所引用的E(Evidence)。最后尾句中给出开头段到正文段的过渡句，指出原文在逻辑上存在F(Flaw)。
【此段功能】
本段作为Argument开头段，具体功能就在发起攻击。首先，概括原文的结论：如果state board减少留作业的频率，学生表现会提高。接下来分别列举了原文为了支持这个结论引用的证据：一个在关于math和science teacher的全州调查。一周两次作业Marlee(以后简称M)区比每天都有作业Sanlee(以后简称S)区成绩和合格率要高。论据的归纳用于铺垫出正文段的具体攻击。最后点出原文存在逻辑错误，引出后面的分析。
To begin with, the survey suffers from two statistical issues, either of which renders the survey's results unreliable. First, the speaker relies on statistics from only two districts but it is entirely possible that these two districts are not representative of the state's school districts overall. Second, the survey involved only math and science teachers. Yet the speaker draws a broad recommendation for all teachers based on the survey's results.
【此段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第一个逻辑错误的错误类型和原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。
【此段功能】
本段作为正文第一段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：调查类错误。作者认为原文所引用的调查在调查对象数量上和质量上都存在问题。首先，只有两个district，很可能不representative。其次，调查只包括 math and science teachers，而建议中提到的是all teacher，所以不合理。
Additionally, the speaker's recommendation relies on the assumption that the amount of homework assigned to students is the only possible reason for the comparative academic performance between students in the two districts. Perhaps there are other reasons. For example, maybe Sanlee teachers are stricter graders then Marlee teachers. Or perhaps Sanlee teachers are less effective than Marlee teachers, and therefore Sanlee students would perform more poorly regardless of homework schedule. In short, in order to properly conclude that fewer homework assignments results in better academic performance, the speaker must first rule out all other possible explanations for the disparity in academic performance between the two districts.
【此段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第二个逻辑错误的错误类型和原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。
【此段功能】
本段作为正文第二段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：因果类错误。原文中建议在“作业量是影响学生表现的唯一原因”的基础上提出的。而作者认为可能会有其他影响学习表现的原因。例如，S区的老师比M取得严格导致S区学生表现不如M区，或是S区的学生在homework schedule下perform more poorly。最后，作者提出必须排除其他因素的影响才能下结论。
Finally, the survey results as reported by the speaker are too vague to support the development of any firm conclusion. The speaker reports that Sanlee students receive lower grades and are more likely to repeat a school year then Marlee students. Yet the speaker does not indicate whether this fact applies to Sanlee and Marlee students generally, or just to math and science students.
【此段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第三个逻辑错误的错误类型和原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。
【此段功能】
本段作为正文第三段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：论据模糊。原文中调查结果不能支持结论。作者认为“S区学生比M区学生成绩差而且留级率高”不能说明学生的总体表现。
In conclusion, the recommendation that all high school students be assigned homework once per week may seem sensible at first, but the argument upon which the recommendation is made. To strengthen the argument, the speaker must demonstrate that the reported correlation in the areas of math and science is also found among most other academic subjects. The speaker must also rule out other factors that might be a contributing factor in the disparity between the students' grades and their likelihood of repeating a year. Finally, to better assess the argument an audience would need to know whether the reported disparity in academic performance between Sanlee and Marlee students involved only math and science students or all students.
【此段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument结尾段结构，即：C – S的结尾结构，首先再次重申原文的站不住脚的Conclusion，接下来给出给合理建议Suggestion。
【此段功能】
本段作为Argument结尾段，具体功能就总结归纳+建议措施，首先再次重申recommendation不合理，接下来给出使原文更有说服力的合理化建议：一是recommendation中必须起到调查中的结果也出现在其他课程中，二是spearker需要排除影响学生成绩和留级率的其他因素，三是要知道M和S两区的差异是法只存在于math and science students 。结尾段的三条建议非常规整的隐射前面的三个错误，前后呼应，文章有力结尾，浑然一体。
满分因素剖析：
一、语言表达
1. The speaker argues that ...(标志性的
标志性的第一段开头，采用标准的C-E-F结构
2. To begin with, the survey suffers from two statistical issues, either of which renders the survey's results unreliable.(提出文所引用的调查存在错误) First, the speaker relies on statistics from only ... , ... not representative ...(标志性的分析调查类错误的语句，提出调查对象数量过少，不具有代表性) Second, the survey involved only ... (标志性的分析调查类错误的语句，提出调查对象只属于某一类群体，不能代表整体的情况)Yet the speaker draws... based on the survey's results. (提出错误调查下结论也存在问题)
3.In conclusion, .... seem sensible at first, but ...(标志性的GRE argument结尾段开头，再次重申原文的结论存在问题) To strengthen the argument, the speaker must demonstrate that ... The speaker must also rule out other factors that ... Finally, to better assess the argument an audience would need to know ... ( 标志性的GRE argument结尾语句，用于提出使原文更有说服力的合理化建议)
二、逻辑结构
本文内容清晰，逻辑严谨，采用了开头段——正文段1——正文段2——正文段3——结尾段的五段论结构，文章长短适中，层次一目了然。开头段按照C-E-F的逻辑结构，顺利引出后文的分析。论证段中，从提出错误，到分析错误，到给出可能性，最后总结错误，层次清晰，衔接自然。结尾段总结全文，重申错误，给出合理化建议。这样一篇文章从开头到结尾逻辑严谨，内容清晰，圆满的完成了论证的作用。