Arg-160
The following appeared in a recommendation from the president of Schenectady's Chamber of Commerce:
"Last October the city of Belleville installed high intensity lighting in its central business district and vandalism there declined almost immediately. The city of Schenectady has recently begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district but the rate of vandalism there remains constant. Since high intensity lighting is apparently the most effective way to combat vandalism, we should install such lighting throughout Schenectady. By reducing vandalism in this way, we can revitalize the declining neighborhoods in our city."
The president of Schenectady's Chamber of Commerce recommends the installation of high-intensity lighting throughout Schenectady as the best means of reducing vandalism and revitalizing city neighborhoods. The memo indicates that when Belleville took similar action, vandalism declined there almost immediately. The president also points out that since Schenectady's police began patrolling on bicycles the incidence of vandalism has remained unchanged. The lighting concludes the memo is the only effective measure to the reduction of vandalism. The president's argument 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：Schenectady(简称S)的president推荐安装high-intensity light以防止破坏和振兴城市。接下来分别列举了原文为了支持这个结论引用的证据：一是Belleville(简称B)用了相同的方法使破坏行为立即减少;二是指出light是使B地区破会行为减少的唯一有效方法，因为警察巡逻没有任何改进。开始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 argument is based on the assumption that in Belleville the immediate decline in vandalism was attributable to the lighting rather than to some other phenomenon. Perhaps around the same time the city added police units or more after-school youth education programs. Moreover, perhaps since the initial decline vandals will, over time, grown accustomed to the lighting and no longer deterred by it. Without ruling out other explanations for the decline and showing that the decline will be a lasting one, the president cannot reasonably conclude on the basis of Belleville's experience that the same course of action would serve Schenectady's objectives.
【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(时间先后)。作者认为B地区增加lighting和B地区vandalism减少这两个先后发生的事情并不具有因果关系。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。
Secondly, the president assumes too hastily that Schenectady's bicycle patrol has been ineffective in deterring vandalism. Perhaps other factors including demographic shift or worsening economic conditions have served to increase vandalism. The bicycle patrol could very well have offset that increase. Without showing that all other conditions affecting the incidence of vandalism have remained unchanged since the police began its bicycle patrol, the president cannot make a determination about the effectiveness of such bike patrols. If one does not understand the correlation between rates of crime stopped by the patrol, the mayor can not state that the bicycle patrols did not reduce the convincingly conclude that high-intensity lighting would be a more effective means of preventing vandalism.
【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(结果错误)。作者指出：原文中“bicycle patrol对vandalism无效的结论”是靠不住的。作者指出造成vandalism的其他因素，如demographic shift和worse econmic conditions，并提出一种可能性：bicycle patrol抵消了这两种影响的增长。最后作者总结，在缺乏other condition unchanged的前提下，结论是不可靠的。
Thirdly, the president assumes that high-intensity lighting and bicycle patrolling are Schenectady's only possible means of reducing crime. In all likelihood Schenectady has other choices: social programs, juvenile legal-system reforms, and so on. Moreover, vandalism is probably not the only type of crime in Schenectady. Therefore, unless the president can show that high-intensity lighting will deter other types of crime as well I cannot take seriously the president's conclusion that installing high intensity lighting would be the best way for Schenectady to reduce its overall crime rate and promote the revitalization of the city.
【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：绝对语气。原文中增加high intensity lighting和bicycle patrol是减少S地区犯罪率的唯一方法语气过于绝对。作者提出了其他的方法，例如social program, juvenile legal-system reforms等其他可以减少犯罪率的方法。进一步，作者提出vandlism是众多crime的一种，high intensity lighting 未必是减少总体犯罪率的唯一方法。
Finally, for the sake of the argument, lets assume that high-intensity lighting was Schenectady's best means of reducing crime in its central business district, the president's further assertion that reducing crime would result in a revitalization of city neighborhoods is unwarranted. Perhaps the decline of Schenectady's city neighborhoods is attributable not to the crime rate in Schenectady's central business district but rather to other factors such as overall economic conditions, the availability of more attractive housing in the suburbs, and so on. And if the neighborhoods in decline are not located within the central business district the president's argument is even weaker.
【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：错误因果。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。
In sum, the recommendation is not well supported. To bolster the argument the president must demonstrate that Belleville's decline in vandalism will be a lasting one and can be attributable to the lighting. The president should also show that lighting would be more effective than any other available means. To better assess the recommendation an audience would need to know whether Schenectady's declining city neighbor-hoods are located within the central business district, and whether any other factors might have contributed to the decline of those neighborhoods.
【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vice president的观点的建议不合理，接下来给出合理的建议：同时，他必须另外提供证据说明A公司的新设备新经理使得A公司与Good Intention相比具有higher level。最后vice president还要说明其他公司与这两家公司相比较是怎样的情况。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. First, the argument is based on the assumption that ... (标志性的论证段开头句，点出原文中错误的conclusion). Perhaps ... . Moreover, perhaps ... (接下来的两句话都以perhaps开头，引出可能造成结果的其他原因，对错误因果进行攻击). Without ruling out other explanations ... , the president cannot reasonably conclude ... .(总结错误，再次重申conclusion不可靠)
2. Secondly, the president assumes too hastily that ... .(标志性的
3. In sum, the recommendation is not well supported. To bolster the argument the president must demonstrate that .... The president should also show that ... . To better assess the recommendation an audience would need to know whether ..., and whether ...
标志性的GRE argument结尾，前面重申文章conclusion存在错误，后面给出使文章更有说服力的合理化suggestion。
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——正文段4——结尾段的六段论结构，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。
本文的第四个论证段是本文的亮点。这一段的开头用到了让步的写法：..., lets assume that high-intensity lighting was Schenectady's best means of reducing crime in its central business district, the president's further assertion that ... is unwarranted. 其中let’s assume 开头的是一个让步的结构，在结构上承接了上文，同时引出了对后面错误的分析，在逻辑上先承认前一个论点是正确的，在这一基础上对后面的结论进行驳斥，使得文章的论证更有深度。