Arg-48
The following appeared in a magazine article about planning for retirement:
"Because of its spectacular natural beauty and consistent climate, Clearview should be a top choice for anyone seeking a place to retire. As a bonus, housing costs in Clearview have fallen significantly during the past year, and real estate taxes remain lower than those in neighboring towns. Nevertheless, Clearview's mayor promises many new programs to improve schools, streets, and public services. Retirees in Clearview can also expect excellent health care as they grow older, since the number of physicians in the area is far greater than the national average."
The argument presented in this article indicates that Clearview should be the top choice for retirees. Clearview's consistent climate and natural beauty, it's falling housing costs, comparatively low property taxes, the mayor's promises for continued improvement to services and excellent health care are all cited as reasons. While Clearview seems like the perfect choice, the argument itself is less than persuasive. Let’s explore.
【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：Clearview(简称C)是退休者最好的选择。接下来分别列举了原文为了支持这个结论引用的证据：Clearview的consistent climate and natural beauty，下降的房价，相对低的property taxes以及市长关于提到health care的承诺。引用的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。
For starters, lets consider consistent climate and natural beauty as a reason for Clearview to take the top spot. These factors are probably some but not all retirees. For many it is probably more important to live near relatives or even to enjoy changing seasons.
【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：因果类错误。作者认为退休者未必把意气候和自然风光当成top choice。作者提出退休者可能更加关注的其他事物来驳斥原文，例如，close to relatives, enjoy changing season.
Also, Clearview's declining housing costs do not necessarily make Clearview the best place to retire for two reasons: despite the decline, Clearview's housing costs might be comparably high nation wide and for wealthier retirees housing costs are not likely to be a factor in choosing a place to retire. Thus the mere fact that housing costs have been in decline shouldn’t send people rushing to retire in Clearview.
【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(证据不足)。原文中关于“C地逐渐降低房价会吸引更多的退休者”这一论断是不靠谱的。作者提出另外两种可能性来反驳这一观点。首先，C地房价虽然下降但是相对其他地方还是很高。其次，对于wealthier retirees来说，房价不是考虑的因素。
The article's reliance on Clearview's property-tax rates is also problematic in two respects: retirees obviously have other choices about where to retire and retirees who are well-off financially, property taxes are not likely to be an important concern in choosing a place to retire. Thus it is unfair to infer from Clearview's property-tax rates that retirees should consider Clearview as the top choice.
【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property taxes 不一定是退休者要考虑养老的首要因素。作者提出，退休者一般有其他选择而且 well-off financially，因此就property taxes而把C地当成养老的首要选择是不正确的。
Yet another problem with the argument involves the mayor's promises. In light of Clearview's low property-tax rates, one should wonder if the mayor would be able to follow through. Absent any explanation of how the city can spend more money in the areas cited without raising property taxes, one simply cannot accept the editorial's recommendation.
【此段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第四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】
本段作为正文第四段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：时间错误。作者认为原文关于“the mayor’s promise”的Evidence是不可靠的。作者认为C地市长虽然现在承诺要改善health care，但是没有证据显示C将来会落实之一政策。
Finally, although the number of physicians in Clearview is relatively high, the per capita number might be relatively low. Moreover, it would be fairer to compare this per capita number with the per capita number for other attractive retirement towns rather than the national average. After all, retirees are likely to place a relatively heavy burden on health-care resources.
【此段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第五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】
本段作为正文第五段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：因果错误(论据模糊)。作者认为C地区虽然医生总数很多但per capita number不一定高。同时作者指出原文需要比较C地和其他地方的医生的per capita number。
In conclusion, the claim is poorly supported. To strengthen it the author must convince an audience, perhaps by way of a reliable survey, that the key features that the vast majority of retirees look for in choosing a place to live are consistent climate, natural beauty, and low housing costs. The author must also provide better evidence that Clearview's property taxes are lower than those of cities in other areas. The author must also explain how the city can make its promised improvements without raising property taxes. Finally, to better assess the argument I would need to know how the per capita number of physicians in Clearview compares to other retirement towns and not just the national average.
【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：原文的论断是没有说服力的。接下来作者给出几条建议：一是通过引用调查来说明retirees关注consistent climate and natural beauty，declining house rate等因素;二是具体说明改善health care的政策会落实;最后说明C地区平均医生比例高于其他地方。这几条建议含蓄的隐射前面的错误，前后呼应，文章有力结尾，浑然一体。
满分因素剖析
一、语言方面
1. The argument presented in this article indicates that ...(标志性的
2. Also, Clearview's ... do not necessarily make ... for two reasons: despite the decline, Clearview's housing costs might be ... and ... . Thus the mere fact that ... shouldn’t ...
标志性的“因果类”错误攻击段落
3. Yet another problem with the argument involves the mayor's promises. (提出文章的某一处存在错误)In light of ... , one should wonder if the mayor would be able to follow through. (指出原文中的错误为“时间类错误”)Absent any explanation of how the city can spend more money in the areas cited without raising property taxes, one simply cannot accept the editorial's recommendation. (再次重申文章的错误)
二结构方面
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——正文段5——结尾段的七段论结构，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。
文章论证部分较长，共有五个段落，攻击到全文的每一个错误。其中前三个错误都为“因果类错误”。在实际写作中，大家可能没有时间完成五个正文段落的书写，大家不妨找文章中比较明显的主要错误，进行攻击。且攻击的错误最好属于不用类型，这样可以使文章的语言富于变化，吸引考官眼球。