GMAT作文之AA七宗罪

一、七宗罪的记忆方法：因、果、证分析了两个晚上的AA，发现“七宗罪”确实是好东西，就是那些“罪”太多、而且过于零散，很难记忆。

因此将七宗罪分类整理了一下，按照论证的原因、结果、论证过程三部分，归为三个类别：因、果、证1、因就是原因上的问题，有以下三个：可疑调查样本不足结论无据2、果就是结论上的问题，有以下两个：无因果联系二者择一3、证就是论证过程上的问题，有以下两个，纵向横向各一个：错误类比（横向）时地全等（纵向）这样，只要记住了三字诀：因、果、证，就很容易记牢全部七宗罪了。

顺便分析一下本月JJ的一篇AA：“Our total sales have increased this year by 20 percent since we added a pharmacy section to ourgrocery store. Clearly, the customer’s main concern is the convenience afforded by one-stopshopping. // 无因果联系，可能另有他因。

The surest way to increase our profits over the next coupleof years, therefore, is to add a clothing department along with an automotive supplies and repairshop. We should also plan to continue adding new departments and services, such as a restaurantand a garden shop, in subsequent years. // 时地全等Being the only store in the area that offers such a range of services will give us a competitive advantage over other local stores.” // 结论无据附：七宗罪第一宗罪：无因果联系The author commits a fallacy of causal oversimplification. The line of the reasoning is that because A occurred before B, the former event is responsible for the latter. (The author uses the positive correlation between A and B to establish causality. However, the fact that A coincides with B does not necessarily prove that A caused B.) But this is fallacious reasoning unless other possible causal explanations have been considered and ruled out. For example, perhaps C is the cause of these events or perhaps B is caused by D. 第二宗罪样本不足Insufficient-sampleThe evidence the author provides is insufficient to support the conclusion drawn from it. One example is logically unsounded to establish a general conclusion (The statistics from only a few recent years are not necessarily a good indicator of future trends), unless it can be shown that A1 is representative of all A. It is possible that.... In fact, in face of such limited evidence, the conclusion that B is completely unwarranted.第三宗罪: 错误类比(based on a false analogy )<横向>The argument rests on the assumption that A is analogous to B in all respects. This assumption is weak, since although there are points of comparison between A and B, there is much dissimilarity as well. For example, A..., however, B.... Thus, it is likely much more difficult for B to do....第四宗罪时地全等all things are equal<纵向>The author commits the fallacy of “all things are equal”. The fact that happened two years ago is not a sound evidence to draw a conclusion that.... The author assumes without justification that the background conditions have remained the same at different times or at different locations. However, it is not clear in this argument whether the current conditions at AA are the same as they used to be two years ago. Thus it is impossible to conclude that....第五宗罪二者择一Either-Or choiceThe author assumes that AA and BB are mutually exclusive alternatives and there is no room for a middle ground. However, the author provides no reasonfor imposing an either-or choice. Common sense tells us that adjusting both AA and BB might produce better results.第六宗罪可疑调查survey is doubtfulThe poll cited by the author is too vague to be informative. The claim does not indicate who conducted the poll, who responded, or when, where and how the poll was conducted. (Lacking information about the number of people surveyed and the number of respondents, it is impossible to access the validity of the results. For example, if 200 persons were surveyed but only 2 responded, the conclusion that...would be highly suspect. Because the argument offers no evidence that would rule out this kind of interpretations,) Until these questions are answered, the results of the survey are worthless as evidence for the conclusion.第七宗罪结论无据gratuitous assumptionThe author falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that.... However, no evidence is stated in the argument to support this assumption. In fact, this is not necessarily the case. For example, it is more likely that.... Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility二、七宗罪超级turbo增强版Fallacies of DistractionFalse Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three options From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be falseSlippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition Appeals to Motives in Place of SupportAppeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by forceAppeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the authorPopularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be trueChanging the SubjectAttacking the Person:(1) the person's character is attacked(2) the person's circumstances are noted(3) the person does not practise what is preachedAppeal to Authority:(1) the authority is not an expert in the field(2) experts in the field disagree(3) the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not namedStyle Over Substance: the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusionInductive FallaciesHasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a populationUnrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative of the sa mple as a wholeFalse Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilarSlothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contraryFallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from considerationFallacies Involving Statistical SyllogismsAccident: a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exceptionConverse Accident : an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should applyCausal FallaciesPost Hoc: because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other Joint effect: one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the jointeffects of an underlying causeInsignificant: one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effectWrong Direction: the direction between cause and effect is reversed Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effectMissing the PointBegging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises Irrelevant Conclusion: an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusionStraw Man: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argumentFallacies of AmbiguityEquivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings Amphiboly: the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations Accent: the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually saysCategory ErrorsComposition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that propertyDivision: because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that propertyNon SequiturAffirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not BInconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true Syllogistic ErrorsFallacy of Four T erms: a syllogism has four termsUndistributed Middle: two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common propertyIllicit Major: the predicate of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the predicateIllicit Minor: the subject of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the subjectFallacy of Exclusive Premises: a syllogism has two negative premisesFallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise: as the name impliesExistential Fallacy: a particular conclusion is drawn from universal premises Fallacies of ExplanationSubverted Support (The phenomenon being explained doesn't exist)Non-support (Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased) Untestability (The theory which explains cannot be tested)Limited Scope (The theory which explains can only explain one thing)Limited Depth (The theory which explains does not appeal to underlying causes)Fallacies of DefinitionT oo Broad (The definition includes items which should not be included)T oo Narrow (The definition does not include all the items which shouls be included)Failure to Elucidate (The definition is more difficult to understand than the word orconcept being defined)Circular Definition (The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition)Conflicting Conditions (The definition is self-contradictory)References。