Argument官方范文

ARGUMENT官方范文
核心论证方法:
1.找出隐含假设（并质疑）identify as many of its claims, conclusions, and
underly ing assumptions as possible；
2.寻找它因和寻找反例think of as many alternativ e explanations and
counterexamples as you can；
3.加条件后讨论think of what additional ev idence might weaken or lend
support to the claims；
4.提出改进方案ask y ourself what changes in the argument would make the
reasoning more sound
^同学们以上四点是核心论证方法！！！所有的满分范文中都用到了这四种方法。

^其中，在论证时需要：think of what additional ev idence might weaken or lend support to the claims. 这里重要的是加上一个常识性条件后，能意识到，有些情况，是支持原命题的。

这一点至关重要，我们是讨论，要求同存异，而不是一味的批驳。

满分作文的模式：essay s at the 6 score lev el that begin by briefly summarizing the argument and then explicitly stating and dev eloping the main points of the critique。

先复述题目，然后清晰的表明观点，然后发展。

高分作文的攻击顺序：Y ou might want to organize y our critique around the organization of the argument itself, discussing the argument line by line. Or you might want to first point out a central questionable assumption and then move on to discuss related flaws in the argument's line of reasoning.
这里给出了两种攻击顺序，根据我读了一个多月awintro 的经验来看，一般官方给出的建议总是越靠后的越好越nb，正如在官方推荐issue观点的时候
总是把平衡观点放在最后。

所以这里比较好的方案是先质疑一个核心的假设，然后再按照原文逻辑来搞。

SAMPLE 1
Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller-skatingaccidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lotswere not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller-skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.
【原题逻辑顺序为：数据显示了对保护装备的需求→展开说明这个数据是怎样显示这样的需求的（即用这个装备有什么效果）→结论：为了达到这个效果我们应该重金买这保护设备。

】
[Benchmark 6]
The notion that protectiv e gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is the intent of these products to either prev ent accidents from occurring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur. 前两句首先肯定了原命题中值得肯定的地方。

这是求同存异的表现。

注意这里第一句作者同意原命题的同时，在第二句紧接着就给出了展开的证明。

而没有光是罗列观点。

However, the conclusion that inv esting in high quality protectiv e gear greatly reduces the risk of being sev erely injured in an accident may mask other (and potentially more significant) causes of injuries and may inspire people to ov er invest financially and psychologically in protectiv e gear. 再说原命题是存在逻辑漏洞的，即它因。

这里并没有展开论证，因为这是全文的中心句，整个文章
都在后面给予论证。

同时，最后半句给出了论据中的潜在后果。

First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear -- preventative gear (such as light reflecting material) and protectiv e gear (such as helmets). body打头第一段是属于攻击总前提假设的，作者认为这个（即保护性设备和防护性设备的差别）是有必要在讨论一切之前弄清楚的。

论证方法为质疑假设，加条件后讨论，提出建议。

实际上，这个前提对应的就是开头段的前两句话。

深层的含义就是，尽管我在开头对你的某一个部分作了让步似的同意，但是这个同意也是建立在一定的假设基础上的，要是这个假设搞不清楚，哼哼我让不让步还不一定呢！本段就来讨论这个假设基础。

Preventative gear is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the "other" is a responsible and caring indiv idual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention. Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by another, the skater or some force of nature. Protectiv e gear does little, if anything, to prev ent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident.这两句分别从两个方面进行了论述，为本段第一句话的论证进行服务，每一方面的具体方法是先定义，再比较。

论证方法为加上不同的条件后进行讨论，比如前一句话假定只有防护性装备会怎样，后一句话假定只有保护性装备会怎么样。

The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protectiv e gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. 这里提出了作者的建议，即如何通过进一步的完善使原命题更加的有力。

These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial. 如果这个问题（保护防护设备的差别）解决了后面的讨论才能继续。

所以说，总的来说这一段是讨论了原文一个核心的前提。

The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not. 从本段起，连着的三个自然段就是按照原文逻辑链的顺序进行攻击和质疑。

实际上，这三段对应的就是开头段的howev er之后的话。

本段先质疑了人的本质的差异。

论证方法是加条件后讨论。

It is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious indiv iduals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behav ior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution and responsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself. 以上三句话展开证明第一个分支观点，论证方法就是大名鼎鼎的三段论。

加入常识性条件。

即本身很注意安全的人配戴保护装置→配戴装置后就能少出事故→故本身注意安全才使得少出事故。

Also, the statistic abov e is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are relativ ely dangerous places to skate in the first place. People who are generally more safety conscious (and therefore more likely to wear gear) may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back y ards. 以上两句展开证明第二个分支观点，论证方法同样为大名鼎鼎的三段论，加上常识性条件。

即街道公园本身不太安全→本身注意安全的人会选择安全的地方→来这里的人都是本身不太注意安全的。

这里最后一点是我给补充上的，原文没有论证完全，但是基本的框架还是有的。

The statistic also goes not differentiate between sev erity of injuries. 攻击逻辑链的第二步，受伤的程度没有说清。

这里的论证方法核心是质疑隐含假设，加条件后讨论。

The conclusion that safety gear prevents sev ere injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with sev ere injuries. 指出原隐含假设。

This is certainly not the case.指出它错了。

Also, given that skating is a recreational activ ity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and weekends (when doctors' offices are closed), skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for
treatment. 加上人们晚上去滑的人多这个条件后讨论，最终削弱原命题。

F inally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality (and presumably more expensiv e) gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear. 攻击逻辑联的第三步，质量好的不一定有用。

核心论证方法为列举它因和提出建议。

For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same prev entativ e benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating. 简单的t-shirt也能很有用。

Before skaters are encouraged to inv est heav ily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit prov ided by indiv idual pieces of gear would be helpful.建议我们对器材考虑得更加全面些。

The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and potentially sav es liv es.强调原文的初衷还是很好的，就好像两个人在那里辩论，范文把原文给说急了，范文怕原文不高兴了，就再哄哄他：别看我骂了这么多，你的初衷还是好的嘛！值得肯定。

Before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be made in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the benefits are needed.范文看原文也不怎么哭了，于是最终还是委婉的表达了自己的建议。

After all, a false confidence in ineffectiv e gear could be just as dangerous asno gear at all.最后补充论证自己的建议：论证方法为反证法。

同时范文在最后吓唬一吓原文，告诉他不这样做的可怕的后果。

分析：
(1)分析原题目中可取之处；指出原文中不足之处；推出论据中的潜在后果。

（这里的第一点展开证明，这样虽然没有直接复述题目，但是这三点说完后整个框架就很清楚了）
(2)正文中第一段质疑核心假设错误（从原题目中的可取之处中寻找，要把它唯一一点正确的东西也给质疑了），后三段按原文逻辑顺序攻击三点，如本文中人的本质→人受的伤的差别→为防止受伤，买质量好的就有用？可以看出，这三点是与原文中三段论式论证环环相扣的。

这就是前面第一部分讲解awintro中提到的analytical writing的具体应用。

(3)逻辑方面的论证方法为：寻找并质疑隐含假设，列举它因，加条件（常识性条件，或者限定性条件）后讨论，提出建议。

(4)在语言方面的论证手法有：分情况讨论，举反例推缪。

(5)最后的时候还是要首先肯定原文的可取之处如初衷好啊，然后指出需要思考的更加完善才行。

要是思考的不完善会有什么后果。

SAMPLE 2
The University of Claria is generally considered one of the best universities in the world because of its instructors' reputation, which is based primarily on the extensive research and publishing record of certain faculty members. In addition, several faculty members are internationally renowned as leaders in their fields. For example, man y of the faculty from the English department are regularly invited to teach at universities in other countries. Furthermore, two recent graduates of the physics department have gone on to become candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physics. And 75 percent of the students are able to find employment after graduating. Therefore, because of the reputation of its faculty, the University of Claria should be the obvious choice for anyone seeking a quality education.
【原题逻辑顺序：UC老师牛→UC学生牛→想牛就选择UC】
[Benchmark 6]
While the Univ ersity of Claria appears to hav e an excellent reputation based on the accomplishments and reputations of its faculty, one would also wish to
consider other issues before deciding upon this particular institution for undergraduate or graduate training. 首先承认UC的声望看起来确实不错，算是部分的同意了原文的观点，并简短的展开论证说事因为老师牛。

随后便指出还有他因，但是并没有展开它因。

(留到正文第一段来展开)。

The Phy sics and English departments are internationally known, but these are only two of the areas in which one might study. 这里指出论据的不充足。

实际上是在攻击原文的论据逻辑链。

Other departments are not listed; is this because no others are worth mentioning, or because no other departments bothered to turn in their accomplishments and kudos to the publicity office?给出了论证：提出两个问题进行质疑。

The assumption is that because English and Phy sics hav e excellent brains in the faculty offices, their teaching skills and their abilities to pass on knowledge and the love of learning to their students are equally laudable(值得赞扬的). BODY打头第一段与开头段第一句话对应，具体提出了他因。

同时，还注意到所让步的内容（老师牛学校就牛）仍然是一致的。

质疑：老师牛，就能提供牛的教育吗？Unfortunately, this is often not the case.一针见血的指出不是这么回事。

A prospective student would certainly be adv ised to investigate thoroughly the teaching talents and attitudes of the professors, the library and research facilities, the phy sical plant of the departments in which he or she was planning to study, as well as the liv ing arrangements on or off campus, and the facilities av ailable for leisure activ ities and entertainment.具体论证：还有其他的因素决定教育的水平的。

论证方法为列举他因。

这里的论证给人的感觉就是列的东西多，而且细。

This evaluation of the Univ ersity of Claria is too brief, and too general.这里对于原文中逻辑链中的论据不足进行证明。

实际上就是和开头段后两句话（只有两个系不够）相对应，进一步展开进行证明原文的论据怎么不充分，我们要
全面评估UC除了只知道提供的两个系的信息外还要知道哪些。

Nothing is mentioned about the quality of overall education; it only praises the accomplishments of a few recent graduates and professors.这里属于复述原文，立好靶子做好准备开始攻击。

More important than inv itations to teach elsewhere, which might hav e been engineered by their own departmental heads in an attempt to remov e them from the campus for a semester or two, is the relationship between teacher and student. Are the teaching faculty approachable? Are they helpful? Hav e they an interest in passing on their knowledge? Are they working for the future benefit of the student or to get another y ear closer to retirement? How enthusiastic are the students about the courses being taught and the faculty members who teach those classes? Are there sufficient classes av ailable for the number of students? Are the campus buildings accessible; how is the Univ ersity handling all those cars? Is the University a pleasant, encouraging, interesting, challenging place to attend school? What are its attitudes about education, students, student ideas and innovations, faculty suggestions for improvement?一开始攻击就一连问了十几个问题，显得很雄辩，这里问了这么多问题，核心只有一个，学校老师学生之间三角关系到底怎么样。

具体论证是先说师生关系（老师对待学生怎么样，学生对待老师怎么样），再说学校和学生（学校给学生提供了哪些便利），最后说学校和老师和学生的关系（老师通过学校为了提高给学生的教育提出了什么意见么）.可以说是层层递进，还是很有章法的！论证手法为列举他因。

）
What about that 75% employment record?这里质疑了逻辑链中的另一个论据，即毕业生找工作的数据也能推出学校牛。

核心论证方法为质疑假设，提出建议。

Were those students employ ed in the field of their choice, or are they flipping burgers(烙牛肉饼) and empty ing wastebaskets while they search for something they are trained to do.这里论证方法为质疑假设（是否是工作在喜欢的专业），我观察到这里并没有给出质疑后的结果的展开。

也许作者认为
展开后的结果是不言而喻的所以就不再展开细说了。

这就是作者大牛之处，他懂得驾驭知道什么地方说到多少就够了，所以越是大牛的文章就越是短。

这个文章就很短。

而对于我们来说，它的论证思路是一定要接受，但是为了保险起见，还是把每个论点发展完全比较好，比如在这里加上：要是他们不在自己的最喜欢专业工作，说明他们还是没有足够的实力让自己喜欢的工作接受自己，从而说明母校的教育也没有那么牛啊。

我们论证的越充分，显然就越有把握拿高分。

A more specific statement about the employ ability of students from this University is needed in order to make the argument forceful.提出了建议，使得论证更有力。

The paragraph giv en merely scratches the surface of what must be said about this University in order to entice students and to conv ince them that this is the best place to obtain a quality education.这篇文章在最后没有肯定原文的初衷，而是不留情面的批评！这是要看具体题目的，像这样的广告，本来就没有多么高尚的目的。

而上一篇范文人家不管逻辑有多差，但人家总是抱着善良的一颗心，为了保护大家的生命安全啊！所以说，我们对于原命题的立意心里要有数。

Much more work is needed by the public relations department before this can be made into a four-color brochure and handed out to prospectiv e students.最后还是提出了整体的宏观的建议改进意见。

SAMPLE 3
"According to a recent report from our marketing department, fewer people attended movies produced by Silver Screen during the past year than in an y other year. And yet the percentage of generally favorable comments by movie reviewers about specific Silver Screen movies actually increased during this period.Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers; so the problem lies not with the quality of our movies but with the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available.
Silver Screen should therefore spend more of its budget next year on reaching the public through advertising and less on producing new movies."
【原文逻辑顺序：看电影观众减少→评论人好评增加→观众不关注评论→我们要增加广告费投资并减少电影投资】
[Benchmark 6]
The argument presented above is relatively sound, however, the author fails to recognize all the elements necessary to evaluate his situation.这句话也很摸版化，但是重点分析一下这里ev aluate his situation，读了后面几段，我们会知道全是在考虑对外界的评估的。

所以这一句话就指明了论证的核心，可以说统领全文。

The idea that more money be inv ested in adv ertising may be a helpful one, but perhaps not because people are unaware of the current rev iews.这句话实际上是在进行让步，承认了广告还是有用的，但是原因不同。

点明了论证主题句，下面几段全是围绕着让广告更有效这个主题来写的，正如官方评语中就提到了本文有个明显的中心句，就是本句。

T o clarify, it may be necessary to advertise more in order to increase sales, howev er that could be due to many circumstances such as a decrease in the public's overall attendance, an increase in the cost of movies, or a lack of trust in the opinions of the rev iewers.这句话是对主题句的补充，提供了几种具体的他因的论证方向，更重要的作用是，把主题句给打拆开几个小的分枝论点，从而方便下面的讨论。

The adv ertising director first needs to determine the relativ e proportion of mov ie goers that choose to see Silv er Screen films.第一个需要对外界进行的评估就是人群中选择SS的比例。

That will help him to understand his market share. If the population in general is attending less, then he may still be out-profiting his competitors, despite his indiv idual sales decrease. In fact, his relativ e sales could be increasing.这几句话是对分枝论点的三段式演绎，即总体人数减少，她有可能还有竞争力，只要他的相对份额更多，竞争能力强，有可能他挣的更多。

Determining where he stands in his market will help him to create and
implement an action plan.最终的an action plan不就是广告吗，在段末尾很明显（尽管换了个词）的点了一下题。

Another important thing to consider is the relativ e cost of attending mov ies to the current standard of liv ing.第二个需要考虑的就是当前的人们平均生活水平。

If the standard of liv ing is decreasing, it may contribute to an o v erall decrease in attendance.In that case, adv ertising could be v ery helpful, in that a clev er campaign could emphasize the low cost of mov ies as compared to many other leisure activities. This could offset financial anxieties of potential customers.这几句话是环环相扣的，论证方法为加条件后讨论，三段论式演绎，即人们生活水平降低==〉总体上看电影的人变少==〉广告强调电影最低价会很有效==〉广告这时是很有效的。

经过一番的推导，最终还是指向了中心观点，就是广告还是很有帮助的。

这是又一次的很好的点题。

我们仔细比较二三两段就会发现，在论证结构上有着很好的对应，是非常工整的对仗。

Finally, it is important to remember that people rarely trust mov ie reviewers.第三个需要考虑的就是人们的信任问题。

这里通过论证使得最后推导出中心观点的后半句话，至此全文的逻辑链论证就比较完善了。

For that reason, it is important that the films appeal to the populus, and not critics alone. The best adv ertisement in many cases is word of mouth. No matter what critics say, people tend to take the opinions of friends more seriously. This supports continual funding to produce quality mov ies that will appeal to the av erage person.最后通过三段论的演绎，使得广告效应逐渐向拿出钱真正搞点好电影这个观点上过渡。

我认为这是全文的亮点。

触及到了事物的本质的改变才是最有意义的，使得在前两段的论证的基础上，通过本文的论证使得讨论更加的深入，更加的务实。

There is no reason that silv er screen should not spend more on adv ertisement,
however, there is reason to continue to invest in div erse, quality films.本文的满分的另一个有利保障就是最后一段的精准的概括，可以说，最后一段总结了全文的态度，使得考官看完最后一段能迅速找到全文的论证核心。

这是有必要的。

Furthermore, the company must consider carefully what it chooses to emphasize in its adv ertisement.这一段同时给出了建议改进方案。

最后，本文实在是相当的短，之所以这么短，是因为省去了开头复述原题，省去了单列一段质疑让步的假设，比如说这里的让步是广告是有用的，所以就要质疑在什么时候是有用的，如果再加上这样一段外加演绎的话就会更好。

同样，这篇文章语言十分的简洁，基本上没有废话，没有所谓的亮点词句，这也许是给我们的启发，告诉我们更应该关注什么：立论点以及安排方式以及论证方式。

这三个论点的安排是：市场规模→人民生活标准→人不相信评论家→人对于质量的要求，顺序是从外在条件到内在条件。

SAMPLE 4
Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour. Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent. But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period. Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.
【原题逻辑顺序：6月前F提高限速→F事故升高→E没提高限速反而事故略减少→F要想减少事故就不能提高限速】
The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned.这一句话指出原文存在逻辑问题，这里用的语言很简单。

而不是北美范文中有时堆彻了
一堆放之四海皆为准的无关痛痒的话。

很明显，官方的意思是说这样的客套话一定要说，但是一定要用最简洁的形式来说，而同时那些具体问题具体分析性的语言则要详细的说明白，说清楚。

By making a comparison of the region of Forestv ille, the town with the higher speed limit and therefore automobile accidents, with the region of Elmsford, an area of a lower speed limit and subsequently fewer accidents, the argument for reducing Forestv ille's speed limits in order to decrease accidents seems logical.这个开头真的非常巧，因为他用一句话达到了两句话的效果，即同时复述题目并指出问题在哪，而没有像北美一样说结论是什么证据是什么证据再说不能支持结论。

设想一下如果我们是考官的话看到这样的一个开头得到了一个什么信息呢：此考生已经完全读懂题目了，并且他对原文的逻辑顺序也已经掌握了。

深一点层次来说：aw考试考得是我们的分析能力，这是重点。

虽然官方说明也曾经强调理解原文很重要，但是终归理解能力并不是考试的重点。

所以比较好的做法是：分析题目的脉络，写出分析性的概括。

这里没有必要单独再复述题目了因为在分析中已经暗含了原文的信息。

这里还有一点值得注意：为什么要在第二句话的最前面用comparison这个词呢，这是有讲究的！原文的论证核心就是比较，而这里将此词提到最前面一是说这是原文的逻辑关联，二是暗示我下面要做的就是围绕着此比较而进行的。

有点类似于主题句的主干提前。

这个词真的是令人发指的重要，看到后面你就知道了。

However, the citizens of Forestv ille are failing to consider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidents after the raise in speed limit.这一段是质疑一个假设的前提。

从前面的几个范文的分析我们可以看出来，正文body首段质疑的都是作者让步的前提，那么这里的让步在哪里呢，开头段并没有提到阿。

确实没有在第一段提到让步。

但是别着急，在最后一段的第一句，出现了让步（即since后面的两点理由），这不就又对应上了吗！让步说F这些市民可能是因为自己的利益或者保护自己的安全才建议取消限速的。

那么这里的前提就是是F因为限速才使事故增加的。

这一段将这个前提狠狠
的质疑了一番。

论证方法为列举他因。

Such alternatives may include the fact that there are less reliable cars trav eling the roads in Forestv ille, or that the age bracket(年龄段) of those in Elmsford may be more conduciv e to driv ing safely. It is possible that there are more y ounger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestv ille than there are in Elmsford. In addition, the citizens hav e failed to consider the geographical and phy sical terrain of the two different areas. Perhaps Forestv ille's hi ghway is in an area of more dangerous curves, sharp turns, or has many intersections or merging points where accidents are more likely to occur.列举了三点他因，有两点值得注意：一是这里作者前两点都没有详细展开，但这是不是意味着对于比较常识性的例子不用展开呢，不是！同志们，展开并不只有三段论式展开才是展开，谁说这里没有展开呢？作者实际上已经通过定语同位语进行展开了！！比如younger, inexperienced,和elderly, unsafe 就是互相补充阿，所以说我们在给出常识性的例子时，要注意通过修饰语的方式进行暗中的展开。

判断我们证明的是否严谨是否充足，可以这样：完全只是用我们提供的信息来推，能不能推出最后的结果。

而最后一点展开的则较为充分，这里看来是因为最后一点有点过于宽泛，必须要进行详细具体解释才行。

更深一层次的来说作者对于例子的安排也是有详有略，给人错落有致的感觉，美。

另外一点值得注意的就是，这三个论证中无一例外的都进行了EF的比较，照应了开头给出的comparison这个词，作者兑现了自己在开头的暗示。

It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area.这里作者的论证向前进了一步：前面提出了很多的他因，但光提出他因是不够的，我们心里一定要想着提出他因是干什么的。

这里指出了他因究竟如何来利用，使得证明原文。

即应该多考虑一下我所提出的他因，而不是限速。

Elmsford may be an area of easier driving conditions where accidents are less likely to occur regardless of the speed limit.这和上一句是相照应的，属于对比性的论证，刚才说F有了他因所以不是限速能解决，这里有说了E也许也是他因才使得情况稍好。

整个段落是多么整齐的对仗阿！EF两地的对比无处不在，而又那么的工整！作者。