Arg-74
The president and administrative staff of Grove College, a private institution, made the following recommendation to the college's governing committee:
"We recommend that Grove College preserve its century-old tradition of all-female education rather than admit men into its programs. It is true that a majority of faculty members voted in favor of coeducation, arguing that it would encourage more students to apply to Grove. But eighty percent of the students responding to a survey conducted by the student government wanted the school to remain all female, and over half of the alumni who answered a separate survey also opposed coeducation. Keeping the college all-female, therefore, will improve morale among students and convince alumni to keep supporting the college financially."
In this memo Grove College's administration recommends preserving its tradition of admitting only female students. The administration admits that most faculty members are in favor of a co-educational policy but the administration defends its recommendation by citing a student government survey in which 80% of student respondents and more than 50% of alumni respondents reported that they favor the current policy. The administration reasons that preserving the status quo would improve student morale and help ensure continued alumni donations to Grove. While the argument seems sensible, it is flawed in several critical respects.
【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：Grove College(简称G)推荐表持只录取女学生的传统。接下来分别列举了原文为了支持这个结论引用的证据：survey表明80%的学生参与者以及50%的校友参与者支持现在的政策，administration认为维持现状可以提升学生士气并获得校友的持续捐助，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。
First, the statistical reliability of the survey itself comes into question. If a disproportionate number of the survey's respondents were newer students, then the survey results would distort the student body's opinion as a group. With respect to the alumni survey, perhaps fewer alumni who donate substantial sums to Grove responded to the survey than other alumni did. If so, then the survey results would distort the comparison between the total amounts of future donations. Besides, the memo provides no information about what percentage of Grove's students and alumni responded to the surveys.
【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存在疑问。进一步，作者提出几种可能性来质疑原文中的调查。学生样本可能是disproportion的，导致调查结果不能反映学生的整体情况;alumni调查得到的回复可能很少来自会捐钱的校友。同时，作者还指出，原文中没有提到student和alumni调查的比例。
Secondly, the administration hastily assumes that Grove's alumni, as a group, would be less inclined to donate money if Grove begins admitting male students. This aspect of Grove's admission policy is only one of many factors that might affect alumni donations. For example, since Grove's faculty are generally in favor of changing the policy, perhaps the change would improve faculty moral and therefore the quality of instruction would increase. Perhaps, in the case of overall academic improvement (which could hypothetically occur as a result of the change) alumni would be even more included to offer financial support. So, if the particular alumni who are in a position to make the largest contributions are presented with an argument that establishes a link between faculty morale and overall improvement, an increase in donations by these individuals could occur.
【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：错误因果。作者认为原文中“如果招收男学生，校友不倾向于捐钱”这一论断是毫无逻辑的，因为这只是G学校政策中的一条。进一步，作者提出其他可能性来反驳原文中的论断，G学校的教工支持改革，改革会使教工士气提高并提高教学质量。可能总体教学质量的提高会使alumni更倾向于捐款。
Finally, the administration's argument that student morale would improve under the status quo is logically unsound in two respects. First, the administration provides no reason why morale would improve, as opposed to remaining at its current level, if the status quo is simply maintained. Second, the administration cannot really predict how the morale of the student body would be affected by a policy change.
【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：错误因果。作者认为原文中“学生的士气会因为政策的不变而提高”这一论断是不正确的。作者提出了两个原因：首先administration没有说明导致士气上升或下降的原因。其次，administration没有说明改革对学生士气产生的影响。
In sum, the recommendation to maintain the status quo, while it may be a reasonable recommendation, is based on an unsound argument. To better assess the argument an audience would need to be offered detailed information about the two surveys to determine whether the respondents as groups were representative of their respective populations. Further, to bolster the argument for its recommendation, the administration must provide better evidence—perhaps by way of a reliable alumni survey that takes into account respondents' financial status and history of donations in order to determine whether a policy shift would cause them to increase, decrease or leave their donation amounts the same.
【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，首先再次重申原文中“提倡维持现状”的recommendation不合理。接下来作者给出使原文更有说服力的合理的建议：一要说明所引用调查的样本是否具有代表性，二要提出调查针对可能捐款校友的情况以及政策改变会不会引起捐款情况的变化。结尾段的几条建议非常规整的隐射前面的几个主要错误，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. In this memo Grove College's administration recommends ... .(标志性的
2. First, the statistical reliability of the survey itself comes into question. (标志性的GRE argument论证段开头，点出原文存在调查类错误)If a disproportionate number ... , then the survey results would ... . (标志性的调查类错误攻击模板，攻击缺乏随机性的抽样调查)With respect to the alumni survey, perhaps ... . If so, then the survey results would ... .(标志性的调查类错误攻击模板，攻击实际调查对象与研究对象不相符的抽样调查) Besides, the memo provides no information about what percentage of... .(标志性的调查类错误攻击模板，攻击样本数量比例不明确的调查)
二、逻辑结构
本文是非常严谨的开头段-正文段1-正文段2--正文段3-结尾段的的五段论逻辑体系。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。