Argument 101
The following appeared in a newspaper feature story:
"There is now evidence that the relaxed manner of living in small towns promotes better health and greater longevity than does the hectic pace of life in big cities. Businesses in the small town of Leeville report fewer days of sick leave taken by individual workers than do businesses in the nearby large Mason City. Furthermore, Leeville has only one physician for its one thousand residents, but in Mason City the proportion of physicians to residents is five times as high. And the average age of Leeville residents is significantly higher than that of Mason City residents. These findings suggest that people seeking longer and healthier lives should consider moving to small communities."
This newspaper story concludes that living in a small town promotes health and longevity. The speaker bases the conclusion on a comparison between the small town of Leeville and nearby Mason City, a larger town. While the argument appears valid enough at first glance, a closer look reveals a few distinct weaknesses.
【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：住在小城镇会提高健康水平和寿命。接下来分别列举了原文为了支持这个结论引用的证据：对小城镇Leeville和大城市Mason City的对比，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。
One initial problem with the argument is that the author draws conclusion about the effect of a town's size on the health and longevity of its residents but doesn’t really present any evidence. There are a lot of indications that the residents of one town are healthier but the speaker doesn’t indicate why. More specifically, the only evidence presented here is the pace of life. This does very little to establish requisite links.
【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(无原因)。作者认为原文只提出了“小城镇居民比大城市居民健康长寿”这一现象，但是没有indicate why。这样法人为城镇大小对健康状况和寿命产生因果关系。
Next, the author cites the fact that the incidence of sick leave in Leeville is less than in Mason City. This evidence would lend support to the argument only if the portion of local residents employed by local businesses were nearly the same in both towns, and only if the portion of employees who are local residents were nearly the same in both towns. Of course, in a more densely populated area with more people, the incidence of something like sick leave would be higher. Without offering a per-capita rate, one cannot come to the conclusion that the rate is higher or lower in either case.
【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：错误类比。对于原文中对两城市sick leave的比较，作者应当建立在两城市对本地居民的录用率相同，已经雇员中本地居民的比例相同这两个前提下。原文缺乏对这些前提的说明，所以不能从sick leave比较中得到结论。
The author also cites the fact that Mason City has five times as many physicians. However, any number of factors besides the health of the towns' residents might explain this disparity. For example, perhaps people in the city are concerned with cosmetic issues rather than health matters. Without ruling out such explanations, these physician-resident ratios prove nothing about the comparative health of Leeville and Mason City residents.
【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(忽略他因)。作者认为Mason City physician数量是Leeville的五倍可能是其他原因造成的，例如concerned with cosmetic issues rather than health matters(关注化妆品胜于关注健康)。吐过在没有排除他因干扰，physician数量说明不了什么。
Finally, the author cites the fact that the average age of Leeville residents is higher than that of Mason City residents. However, any number of factors might explain this disparity. For example, perhaps Leeville is a retirement community, while Mason City attracts younger working people. For that matter, perhaps Leeville is comprised mainly of former Mason City residents whose longevity is attributable chiefly to their former life-style in Mason City. In any event, the author cannot justify the conclusion that this disparity in average age has anything to do with the healthy benefits or lack thereof in either city.
【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：错误类比。作者认为“Leeville”居民平均寿命比Mason City居民长”之一现象，可能是由其他因素造成的。作者给出了这样一个假设：Leeville是retirement community， 而Mason City attracts younger working people(吸引年年轻的工人)。也许Leeville的居民好多都是来自Mason City的，那么
In conclusion, the argument that small-town living promotes good health and longevity based on the examples above is not very persuasive. However, it seems like a sensible one that one should consider trying to strengthen. The argument could be improved if the author provided clearer connections between his examples of health and of the causes of such healthy examples. More specifically, if he could prove that there was a very specific attribute in one place or the other that effected health, the argument would be far more convincing.
【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“住在小城镇会提高健康水平和寿命”这一论断是没有说服力的。接下来作者给出几条建议：作者需要在health example和cause of health example之间建立逻辑联系，就是要提出影响居民健康的具体因素。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
【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 newspaper story concludes that...(标志性的argument首段开头，引出原文的conclusion) The speaker bases the conclusion on ... (标志性的语句，引出支持原文conclusion的evidence). While the argument appears valid enough at first glance, a closer look reveals a few distinct weaknesses. (标志性的首段结尾，通过让步语句，点出文章存在Flaw)整体开头段是标准的C-E-F的语言和逻辑模版体系。
2. Finally, the author cites the fact that ...(标志性的论证段开头，提出原文错误的地方) However, any number of factors might explain this disparity. (标志性的argument语句，用于类比错误，提出其他可能性的存在)For example, perhaps ... while... (标志性的语句，用来提出对比的两个事物所具有的其他方面的可能性，用于类比错误) For that matter, perhaps ... In any event, the author cannot justify the conclusion that ... (标志性的论证段结尾，总结上文的错误)
3. In conclusion, the argument that ... is not very persuasive(标志性的结尾段开头，再次点出原文的conclusion存在错误). However, it seems like a sensible one that one should consider trying to strengthen. The argument could be improved if the author provided ... More specifically, if he could prove that... , the argument would be far more convincing.(标志性的argument结尾段，用于提出合理化suggestion)
【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-正文段4-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。
正文段的第四段写得很出彩，首先In conclusion, the argument that small-town living promotes good health and longevity based on the examples above is not very persuasive.指出了错误观点以及错误观点依据的证据。接下来，However, any number of factors might explain this disparity.作者提出可能有其他可能性造成这一现象。For example, perhaps Leeville is a retirement community, while ... For that matter, perhaps ... 作者提出了一种假设并对后果进行了分析，从而反驳了原文的结论。In any event, the author cannot justify the conclusion that this disparity in average age has anything to do with the healthy benefits or lack thereof in either city.
最后作者再次重申原文中的错误。此段按照 提出错误，分析错误，给出可能性，总结错误的结构，层次清晰，衔接自然。