写在前面的话：
1、官方范文的重要性不言而喻，大家对官方范文的态度也有褒有贬，有人说这些6分的官方文章都是大牛写出来的，我们学不来，于是有的同学的重心就转向了北美范文。但有一点是不可否认的——官方范文是真的6分，可是ets从来没承认过任何一个北美范文是六分的，尽管也确实都是很好的文章。;
2、关于argument的重要性
很多人认为argument相对于issue来说容易些，也更好操作些，更容易拿高分。我个人认为这是个误区。我们最后拿到的成绩是个平均分，没有人知道具体每篇是多少。尽管有的同学会猜测自己得分是多少多少，但是猜测毕竟是猜测。因为游戏是ets定的，他的标准和我们心中接受的标准肯定是不一样的，打个比方，看看后面第三篇满分范文，让一般人看，估计没有几个人会毫不犹豫地给满分，甚至高分，但在ets眼中它就是满分;另外，实际上新东方的模版写出来的argu文章和官方范文给出的满分文章是有很大差别的，主要体现在是一个是零散凑成的(所谓的让步式攻击有时只是形式上的)而另一个是有核心思想的，我会在后面的分析中具体说明。既然这样，那完全有可能最终4分是来源于3分的argue加5分的issue，而不是反之。所以说，我们有可能高估了我们写argument的能力。
3、对于官方范文，实际上这些看上去很天马行空的文章，潜在的蕴涵了ets所要求的所有要点。之所以很多人看了很多遍没有看出什么可借鉴的地方，源于两点：一是没有和awintro上的要求相对应起来看，二是没有把有限的6篇官方范文进行横比。。
4、本文整体结构：
第一部分awintro中A部分重点语句的归纳和梳理，方便与后面的分析相对照。这里所有的英文均一字不差的摘自awintro。同时也作为我的另一篇文章“awintro的解读”中的argument部分的补充。
第二部分是我的对于全部6份官方范文(结合awintro)的分析，本文属于个人观点，一家之言难免存在偏颇和不足之处，恳请大家多多指教。
第三部分为总结。
第四部分为了显示不是纯扯淡，并让我的证明更加具体，我按照我分析出来的结果也独立写了一篇文章，请大家狂拍。
注：我把awintro和没有加入分析的六个范文放在附件里了，欢迎大家下载。
5、ets就像是一个羞涩的女孩，从来不会直接告诉我们她想要什么，但同时，也在无时不刻的不在暗示我们她想要什么。
awintro的归纳和整理
1、在拿到题目后应该找出这些：what is offered as evidence, support, or proof;
what is explicitly stated, claimed, or concluded;what is assumed or supposed, perhaps without justification or proof;what is not stated, but necessarily follows from what is stated。总结一下：即论据，结论，推理过程中的未加证明的假设，论据中的潜在后果。这四点都是需要我们尽量展示在第一段里面的。
2、同时，还要考虑原题目中的逻辑链：In addition, you should consider the structure of the argument。在这过程中更重要的是：sometimes implicit steps in the thinking process and consider whether the movement from
each one to the next is logically sound。这是我们攻击的要点，尤其是隐含的逻辑步骤。
3、在分析时：You will not be expected to know methods of analysis or technical terms.随后在范文中可以看出，几乎是没有那种像新东方那样精确错误名词的，而只是就着错误本身的逻辑进行分析。不需要给人感觉咱们特意学过逻辑，如果拽那些名词就给人感觉咱们特意学过逻辑，嘿嘿那既然是专业的要求也就更加苛刻了。
4、awintro中举一个例子：For instance, in one topic an elementary school principal might conclude that the new playground equipment has improved student attendance because absentee rates have declined since it was installed.论证的思路为：(1)意识到存在它因you will simply need to see that there are other possible explanations for the improved attendance,(2)提供具体的它因 to offer some common-sense examples, (3)从结论考虑，怎样才能使论证完整有力，即如何改进and perhaps to suggest what would be necessary to verify the conclusion. For instance, absentee rates might have decreased because the climate was mild. This would have to be ruled out in order for the principal’s conclusion to be valid.
5、官方认为的有几个关键名词需要解释，其中analysis这个词的解释很重要，很多同学知道这个词的意思是分析，但什么是分析就说得不是很清楚了。这里给出了清晰的答案：the process of breaking something (e.g., an argument) down into its component parts in order to understand how they work together to make up the whole。说白了，就是把原题中的三段式论证给打拆开，逐一地进行分析。同样的analytical writing的核心也就是拆开原命题，分成1串逻辑链，然后一部分一部分地讨论。
6、核心论证方法：找出隐含假设(并质疑)identify as many of its claims, conclusions, and underlying assumptions as possible;寻找它因和寻找反例think of as many alternative explanations and counterexamples as you can;加条件后讨论think of what additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the claims;提出改进方案ask yourself 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 evidence 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。
7、满分作文的模式：essays at the 6 score level that begin by briefly summarizing the argument and then explicitly stating and developing the main points of the critique。先复述题目，然后清晰的表明观点，然后发展。
8、高分作文的攻击顺序：You might want to organize your 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。
9、6分作文标准：
A 6 paper presents a cogent, well-articulated critique of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully.
A typical paper in this category
? clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully
? develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions
? effectively supports the main points of the critique
? demonstrates control of language, including appropriate word choice and sentence variety
? demonstrates facility with the conventions (i.e., grammar, usage, and mechanics) of standard written English but may have minor errors 范文分析
第一篇文章
Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after rollerskating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were 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, rollerskaters 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 protective 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 prevent accidents from occuring 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 investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other (and potentially more significant) causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective 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 pro
tective 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 individual 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 an other, the skater or some force of nature. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent 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 protective 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。转载自:考试大 - [Examda.Com]
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however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。If is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. 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 above is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are relatively 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 yards. 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 severity 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 severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe 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 activity 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。
Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality (and presumably more expensive) 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 preventative 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 invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by individual 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 saves lives.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 ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no 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。 Reader Comment on 6
This outstanding response demonstrates the writer's insightful analytical skills.
The introduction, which notes that adopting the prompt's fallacious reasoning could "...inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear," is followed by a comprehensive examination of each of the argument's root flaws. Specifically, the writer exposes several points that undermine the argument:
*that preventive and protective gear are not the same
*that skaters who wear gear may be less prone to accidents because they are, by nature, more responsible and cautious
*that the statistics do not differentiate by the severity of the injuries *that gear may not need to be high-quality to be beneficial
The discussion is smoothly and logically organized, and each point is thoroughly and cogently developed. In addition, the writing is succinct,
economical and error-free. Sentences are varied and complex, and diction is expressive and precise.
In sum, this essay exemplifies the very top of the "6" range described in the scoring guide. If the writer had been less eloquent or provided fewer reasons to refute the argument, the essay could still have been scored "6."
小总结：
(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)正文中第一段质疑我认为的核心假设错误(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。(范文最后一段基本属于扯淡)
第二篇文章：
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, many 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UCwww.Ｅxamda.Co考试就上考试大
While the University of Claria appears to have 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 Physics 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 Physics have 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. 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 advised to investigate thoroughly the teaching talents and attitudes of the professors, the library and research facilities, the physical plant of the departments in which he or she was planning to study, as well as the living arrangements on or off campus, and the facilities available for leisure activities 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 University 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 invitations to teach elsewhere, which might have been engineered by their own departmental heads in an attempt to remove them from the campus for a semester or two, is the relationship between teacher and student. Are the teaching faculty approachable? Are they helpful? Have they an interest in passing on their knowledge? Are they working for the future benefit of the student or to get another year 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 available for the number of students? Are the campus buildings accessible; how is the University 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 employed in the field of their choice, or are they flipping burgers and emptying 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 employability 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 given merely scratches the surface of what must be said about this University in order to entice students and to convince 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 prospective students.最后还是提出了整体的宏观的建议改进意见。 COMMENTARY
The writer of this outstanding response acknowledges that the University of Claria may "appear" to have a sterling reputation, but cogently argues that such a reputation is perhaps unwarranted in light of the thin and misleading information provided.
The essay's insightful critique targets several instances of unsound reasoning in the argument:
-- that the argument identifies academic achievements in only two departments;
-- that publications and research prove little about the quality of teaching at Claria; and
-- that the student employment statistic lacks specificity and may be entirely bogus.
The writer probes each questionable assumption and offers alternative explanations, pointing out, for instance, that invitations for faculty to teach elsewhere may have been purposely arranged in order to temporarily remove them from campus and that the employed students may be "flipping burgers and emptying wastebaskets."
In addition, the response perceptively analyzes many features -- omit
ted by the argument -- that could more convincingly make the case that Claria is "the obvious choice."
The essay suggests that the search for a quality education would, at least, need to investigate the teaching strengths of the faculty; ideally one would also ask about research facilities, the university's physical plant, availability of classes, even parking arrangements!
Although the fourth paragraph ("What about that 75% employment record?") interrupts this discussion, the essay is, on the whole, logically and effectively organized.
Each paragraph develops the central premise: that the argument is uncompelling because it fails to use more valid indices of educational quality.
The writing is succinct, graceful, and virtually error-free, distinguished by impressive diction ("kudos," "laudable," "engineered," "entice"), as well as syntactic sophistication.
For all of these reasons, the essay earns a 6
第三篇文章
The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Silver Screen Movie Production Company.
According to a recent report from our marketing department, fewer people attended movies produced by Silver Screen during the past year than in any 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
WSAMPLE-1 (score 6)www.Ｅxamda.CoM考试就上考试大
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evaluate 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 invested in advertising may be a helpful one, but perhaps not because people are unaware of the current reviews.'
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。 To clarify, it may be necessary to advertise more in order to increase sales, however 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 reviewers.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 advertising director first needs to determine the relative proportion of movie goers that choose to see Silver 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 individual sales decrease.In fact, his relative 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 consder is the relative cost of attending movies to the current standard of living. 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 living is decreasing, it may contribute to an overall decrease in attendance.In that case, advertising could be very helpful, in that a clever campaign could emphasize the low cost of movies 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 movie 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 advertisement 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 movies that will appeal to the average 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 silver screen should not spend more on advertisement, however, there is reason to continue to invest in diverse, 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 advertisement.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。
COMMENTARY
Although the essay begins by stating that the argument "is relatively sound," it immediately goes on to develop a critique.
The essay identifies three major flaws in the argument and provides a careful and thorough analysis.
The main points discussed are that' ?
-- the fall-off in attendance might be industry wide
-- the general state of the economy might have affected movie attendance
-- movie goers "rarely trust movie reviewers"
Each of these points is developed; together they are presented within the context of a larger idea: that while spending more money on advertising may be helpful, the company should "continue to invest in diverse, quality films."
This is a smoothly written, well-developed analysis in which syntactic variety and the excellent use of transitions make for a virtually seamless essay.
This paper clearly merits a score of 6.
第四篇文章
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
6分：
The agrument 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 ** a comparison of the region of Forestville, 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 Forestville'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 Forestville 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 traveling the roads in Forestville, or that the age bracket of those in Elmsford may be more conducive to driving safely.It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville than there are in Elmsford.In addition, the citizens have failed to consider the geographical and physical terrain of the two different areas. Perhaps Forestville's highway 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!作者在开头第二句话的Comparison一词真的是统领全文的阿!正所谓指哪打哪。
A six-month period is not a particularly long time frame for the citizens to determine that speed limit has influenced the number of automobile accidents in the area.从这一段开始攻击原文逻辑链。本段有四个分论点，本来应该写四段的。(至于为什么没有写三段，我想是因为awintro中说我们可以随意的选择段落的数量，并不会影响最后的结果。但是，这样的话前提是阅卷人有足够的耐心。所以为了保险起见，让人看着更为清楚些，我还是建议大家分开写)这里第一个攻击的就是6个月时间够不够。It is mentioned in the argument that Elmsford accidents decreased during the time period. 这一句话的目的在于复述原文条件，立起靶子。从这里开始攻击第二点，即天气的影响。 This may have been a time, such as during harsh weather conditions, when less people were driving on the road and therefore the number of accidents decreased. 对E的论证采用的是经典三段论，即天气差==〉人不出去==〉事故少。However, Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced by employment or other requirements, were unable to avoid driving on the roads. 再次进行了EF对比，通过coerced后面的从句进行推演，属于小展开。也足够充分。 Again, the demographics of the population are important. 这里对逻辑链的第三点进行了攻击。即人口数量的问题。 It is possible that Elmsford citizens do not have to travel far from work or work from their home, or do not work at all. 先说E的人可能少。论证方法是加条件后讨论。 Are there more people in Forestville than there were sic months ago?If so, there may be an increased number of accidents due to more automobiles on the road, and not due to the increased speed limits. 再说F的人可能多。论证方法同要是加条件后讨论。 Also in reference to the activities of the population, 最后攻击逻辑链的第四点，即人们活动的时间。(品味一下本段四个逻辑错误的安排顺序，时间==)天气==)人数==〉人的活动，看似无关，还是很有讲究的阿，这不正是从外在因素到内在因素吗)it is possible that Forestville inhabitants were traveling during less safe times of the day, such as early in the morning, or during twilight.Work or family habits may have encouraged citizens to drive during this time when Elmsford residents may not have been forced to do so.第四点的论证同样是采用了两者的对比。看来作者真是说到做到阿，竟然没有一次论证没有对比的!!论证方法为加条件后讨论。 Overall, the reasoning behind decreasing Forestville's speed limit bac
k to its original seems logical as presented above since the citizens are acting in their own best interests and want to protect their safety. 原来让步在这呢!其实作者心里一直有数，只是没写出来。但是在正文body的第一段已经就其假设进行了讨论。我想我们不是作者这样的牛人，这样的让步还是很有必要在第一段体现出来的。 However, before any final decisions are made about the reduction in speed limit, the citizens and officials of Forestville should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for the increased number of accidents over the six-month period as compared to Elmsford.最后提出了建议。我们看到作者对于文章的立意把握得很好，要是换我们来写，可能会写限速怎么不好啊。而这文章中限速不管怎么说总是有好的一面，只是常识!所以作者的立意为：不是说限速不好，而是说要考虑全。引申一下，我们一定要对文章的立意有个把握。文章无非就三种立意，一种是好的(就像这样的为了安全的(比如skate范文))，一种就是不好不坏的(就像为了利益的为了利润(什么挣钱多啊))，一种是不好的(就像有个说不应该取消安全带规定，还有诋毁某人的)。这三种立意的写法可是完全不同的阿!对于第一种，切记要委婉!最好就是避而不谈，而说应该考虑更全面。对于后面两种，嘿嘿，就得狠点了，尤其是最后一种，就是谴责。后面的文章我会给出分析。
COMMENTARY
This outstanding essay begins by noting that the argument "seems logical."
It then proceeds to discuss possible alternative explanations for the increase in car accidents and provides an impressively full analysis. Alternatives mentioned are that
-- the two regions might have drivers of different ages and experience;
-- Forestville's topography, geography, cars, and/or roads might contribute to accidents;
-- six months might be an insufficient amount of time for determining that the speed limit is linked to the accident rate;
-- demographics might play a role in auto accidents;
-- population and auto density should be considered; and
-- the times of day when drivers in the two regions travel might be relevant.
The points are cogently developed and are linked in such a way as to create a logically organized essay.
Transitions together with interior connections create a smoothly integrated presentation.
For the most part, the writer uses language correctly and well and provides excellent variety in syntax.
The minor flaws (e.g., using "less" instead of "fewer") do not detract from the overall high quality of the critique.
This is an impressive 6 paper.
第五篇文章
The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspape
r.
"Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state.
Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland.
But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue.
If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields.
There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."
原文逻辑顺序：五年前投票决定某地保持原生态==〉原生态可用来做公园让大家受益==〉现在有人建议盖学校==〉盖学校就要改此地为操场==〉建操场是唯一能此地还保持原生态的方案(暗含假设为操场就是原生态)
This letter to the editor begins by stating the reasons the residents of Morganton voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state.The letter states that the entire community could benefit from an undeveloped parkland.The residents of the town wanted to ensure that no shopping centers or houses would be built there.This, in turn, would provide everyone in the community with a valuable resource, a natural park.这里是复述题目的前半部分，即五年前人们的看法以及理由。基本上没有加入任何分析。 The letter then continues by addressing the issue of building a school on the land.The author reasons that this would also benefit the entire community as a natural parkland since much of the land would be devoted to athletic fields.The author of the letter comes to the conclusion that building a school on the land would be the best thing for everyone in the community.这里复述题目的后半部分，即现在要盖学校，作者认为盖学校会有什么效果，以及盖学校是唯一的办法。同志们，第一第二段都是单纯的复述题目，只是稍加了一点层次感，但是几乎没有加上任何分析，以及态度。这实际上是这篇范文的败笔之处。后面的官方评语就是这样说的，说开头段太犹豫了(评语第一段)，并说可以做得更好的(评语最后一段)。所以说这篇文章的开头是考官所不喜欢的，但是为什么也能得满分呢，因为他后面的论证确实很充分，另外也是因为本题本身也真的很难读懂，写到这份上已经不容易了。Awintro里面说了，最后的成绩是看整个文章的整体效果，那么这篇文章虽然有缺点，但还有更大的优点，所以总体是很好的，所以得了满分。从六篇范文的评语里也可以看出来，在这6个满分文章中，有些文章是次满分的，有些文章是满分的，而有些文章是超满分的。我们要做的就是找出每篇文章的优点和缺点，最后汇集优点避免缺点写出一个到处全是优点的文章，那不就是超超超满分了。当然了，这是扯淡，不可能到处都是优点，只能尽量吧。言归正传，这文章的开头应该改进成在简短一点复述题目，至少并成一段，然后加上自己的观点，到底哪里值得后面讨论。
This letter is a one-sided argument about the best use of the land known as Scott Woods. 这里开始分析了，先说是片面的。论证手法为加条件后讨论。The author may be a parent whose child would benefit from a new school, a teacher who thinks a school would boost the community, or just a resident of Morganton. 这里先加上不同的条件，讨论不同的后果，很好的手法阿!你可能会问，他哪里讨论了?没发展讨论哪!其实，当假定作者为教师时，已经在教师的后面的定语从句中给出了充分的演绎，这就是小发展，这就是awintro里强调无数次的cogently，发展于无形之间，我们在写作文的时候也要学会噢。Regardless of who the author is, there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore.这一句话很重要，把前面的假设的变量给排除了，为后面的论证扫清了障碍。
Using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for a natural parkland. 这里指出的是文章的核心的最大的错误，即学校操场不等于原生态。这种论证顺序和其他的不同，没有让步，也没有质疑假设。总体的论证顺序为先讨论一个大的问题，然后再讨论与此大问题相关联的一些小问题。同志们可能要问了这是什么套路阿?其实awintro也推荐过这样的套路,”考试大论坛
The readers know that a writer can earn a high score by analyzing and developing several points in a critique or by identifying a central flaw in the argument and developing that critique extensively.”以上摘自awintro中的一段。 While all the members of the community could potentially benefit from a parkland, only a percentage of the population would realistically benefit from a new school. 这里是分支观点，把原命题给拆分成两个部分以供下面讨论。 The author fails to recognize people like the senior citizens of the community.What interest do they have in a new school?It only means higher taxes for them to pay.
They will likely never to and utilize the school for anything.先说学校操场怎么样(有人不受益)。On the other hand, anyone can go to a park and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness. 再说原生态公园怎么样。(每人受益) The use of the land for a school would destroy the benefit of a park for everyone. 基于以上两点，这句话得出了结论：建学校操场会不如原生态公园好。这个论证还是三段论! In turn, it would supply a school only to groups of people in exactly the right age range, not too young or too old, to reap the benefits.上一句结论的正话反说。本句话很关键!为后一段埋下伏笔。属于逻辑过渡句。
Another point the author stresses is that the use of the land for things like athletic fields somehow rationalizes the destruction of the park.本段是上一段的延续，还是围绕着中心问题进行讨论。我们注意到上一段说学校不能使每一个人受益，只能使其中一部分适龄年轻人收益，这一段就问了：这些适龄年轻人真的受益了吗?所以说是上一段的一个深究，论证的很深入。本段论证方法为列举反例。What about children who don't play sports?Without the school, they could enjoy the land for anything.A playing field is a playing field.Children are not going to go out there unless they are into sports.There are many children in schools who are not interested in or are not
able to play sports.
This is yet another group who will be left out of the grand benefits of a school that the author talks about.这里的论证一下去，原文彻底傻了，原来就算是学生也不能够就一定受益阿!这种论证方式，属于递进式攻击。其内涵的逻辑联系之紧密，让人不由得赞叹!牛!这两段是文章最出彩的地方，也是文章在开头不好的情况下能力挽狂澜得到满分的秘密武器。"
The author's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this...""is easily arguable. 最后文章再质疑了结论的可靠性。 The destruction of Scott Woods for the purpose of building a school would not only affect the ambience of Morganton, it would affect who would and would not be able to utilize the space. 先说建学校这事压根就不靠谱。为什么呢?
后面给出了解释。 If the residents as a whole voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state, this argument will not sway their decision.The use of the land for a school will probably benefit even less people than a shopping center would.The whole purpose of the vote was to keep the land as an asset for everyone. 这里通过和购物中心比，得出了结论说当初的投票就是为了大家。这个论证也是全文的亮点，因为他是用原文的条件来攻击原文，它认为购物中心的收入已经是相当高了，但即使这么高的收入也没有原生态公园给每个人带来的收益高，更何况是收益还不如购物中心的学校呢。这里更深层次的隐含意思是：购物中心是所有投资中利润最高的，这都不行，所以任何的改动都是不行的。就必须要保持原生态公园。这里作者的思想多么的锐利。一下子就揪住了原文的一项自我矛盾的地方。The only way to do this is to keep it in an undeveloped state.Using the land for a school does not accomplish this.最终提出了作者的建议。
COMMENTARY考试大－中国教育考试门户网站(www．Examda。com)
This outstanding response begins somewhat hesitantly; the opening paragraphs summarize but do not immediately engage the argument. However, the subsequent paragraphs target the central flaws in the argument and analyze them in almost microscopic detail.
The writer's main rebuttal points out that "using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for natural parkland."
Several subpoints develop this critique, offering perceptive reasons to counter the argument's unsubstantiated assumptions.
This is linked to a related discussion that pointedly exposes another piece of faulty reasoning: that using land for athletic fields "rationalizes the destruction of the park."
The extensively developed and organically organized analysis continues into a final paragraph that takes issue with the argument's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this." Diction and syntax are varied and sophisticated, and the writer is fully in control of the standard conventions.
While there may be stronger papers that merit a score of 6, this essay demonstrates insightful analysis, cogent development, and mastery of
writing.
It clearly earns a 6.
第六篇文章
A recent survey of dental patients showed that people who use Smile-Bright toothpaste are most likely to have capped teeth -- artificial but natural-looking protective coverings placed by dentists on individual teeth. Those people who had begun using Smile-Bright toothpaste early in life were more likely to have capped teeth than were people who had begun using Smile-Bright later in life.
In addition, those who reported brushing their teeth more than twice a day with Smile-Bright toothpaste were more likely to have caps on their teeth than were those who reported brushing with Smile-Bright less frequently.
Therefore, people wishing to avoid having their teeth capped should not use Smile-Bright toothpaste.
原文逻辑顺序：用SB的最易带牙套==〉早用比晚用SB的易带牙套，每天用两次SB的更易带牙套==〉想不带牙套就不用SB。
注：这篇文章大家一看肯定特别有亲切感，因为这和新东方摸版和北美范文摸版非常的像!甚至，我怀疑，这就是后两者的原型。这些研究考试的人发现这篇文章具有很好的操作性，并看上去结构特别清晰。所以也就照葫芦画瓢。如果是这样的话，研究这个原版的价值就不言而喻了。
The argument contains several facets that are questionable. 段首句指出存在问题，同样没有过多的修饰，简洁明快。使文章迅速转移到后面的实质性分析。 First, the reliability and generalizability of the survey are open to quesiton. 指出第一个问题是调查类问题，并具体说出了是样本可信度和样本代表性，实际上这和后面的论证是对应的。 In addition, the argument assumes a correlation amounts to a causal relationship. 指出第二个问题，是因果关系。 The argument also fails to examine alternative explanations. 指出第三个问题，没有提出上面因果关系的他因。 I will discuss each of these facets in turn.第一段简洁明了，三个攻击点统领下面三段。这里对原文的复述似乎并不详细。因为原文的逻辑链很简单，作者不用向我们证明他读懂了，我们也知道他肯定读懂了。不像第五个范文那样，读个原题就得半天。实际上，这里的重点放在了后面的分析上，同时在后面的分析中也包含了复述原题中的每一个条件。
In evaluating the evidence of the survey, one must consider how the survey was conducted. 第一点：考虑调查类问题。分为两个分支论点，一个是有倾向的问题，一个是被调查者的代表性。 If the questions were leading or if the survey relied on self reports, the results might be unreliable -- people might just respond with the expected answer. 这里论证是否问卷中有loaded问题，方法为加条件后讨论。One must also consider how broad the survey was. 这里论证被调查者的代表性。方法还是加条件后讨论，三段式论证。 If the survey was limited to a few patients of a certain dentist, the results might be attributable to those particular individuals and that particular dentist.Hence, the generalization drawn might not apply to most p
eople. 这又是典型的三段式论证：如果只是个别医生的个别病人==〉有可能归因于是个别现象==〉得到的结论无法推广到整体。 In addition, even if the survey was broader, one must consider whether it was limited in certain ways.看到这里，一下子就想起了新东方，这正是他们极力推荐的层层让步式论证，后面一段也是这样的论证。论证方法为列举他因。For example, were the survey respondents old people?Was the survey limited to a certain city or geographic region?Factors such as these could explain the survey results and could undermine the generalizability of the survey results.举了两个他因，注意到这里用的是问句，官方范文是很喜欢用问句的。
Even if one accepts the survey results, the argument remains questionable. 作了一下让步，开始攻击因果关系不成立。The argument assumes that the correlation between the use of SMILEBRIGHT and capped teeth means that SMILE BRIGHT causes the need for capped teeth. 这里就复述题目了，同时也是立起靶子，等待攻击。 But the argument fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion.指出没有证据显示有因果关系。先打拆开关系。
In addition, the argument fails to consider the possibility that people who already have capped teeth might prefer SMILEBRIGHT as a toothpaste because it works better on capped teeth.这里举出了个他因，甚至有点想逆转原来的因果关系的意思，从而使已经打拆开的因果关系分的更加清楚。 Finally, the argument's author fails to rule out alternative explanations.这里继续打拆上一段打开的因果关系，提出了他因，就像往伤口上撒一把盐。打个比方，女生家长为了不让女儿和一个男生在一起，就先把他两个给隔离起来，然后最狠的就是，给那个男生找一个巨棒巨棒的新女朋友。For instance, people who brush their teeth more than twice a day might be those who are prone to the need to have their teeth capped. 举出第一种可能性。Weak结论(一天两次更易带牙套)。 It might also be the case that starting with SMILEBRIGHT early in life damages the teeth so that capped teeth will be needed later.
举出第二种可能性。Strengthen原结论(早用早带牙套)的.It also might be the case that SMILEBRIGHT users tend to be the kind of people who are excessively concerned with the appearance of their teeth, perhaps theyre actors, and so are the kind of people who might, sooner or later, want to have their teeth capped anyway.举出第三种可能。论证方法为加条件后讨论，讨论采用三段式。来源：考试大的美女编辑们
In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logocal at first, has several flaws as discussed above. 这句话很经典，摸版性很强。 The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the correlation is indeed a causal relationship -- that using the toothpaste actually causes the need for capped teeth.
给出第一条建议是针对没有因果关系的那段的。It could be further improved by ruling out alternative explanations for the supposed causal relationship.给出的第二条建议是针对因果关系中提供他因的那段。总的来看，这里的提建议的方式以及位置都和新东方和北美范文很像。最后，我们发现这文章所指
出的逻辑错误都是大错误，那种脊梁骨似的错误，而对于小错误，比如他们 rep ort 则不予讨论，看得出来，官方的意思是，无论什么文章，都最优先挑核心逻 辑链中的重点错误，小错误能挑出来更好，但没有也没关系，前提是大错误都挑 出来了并且论证充分。本文与前面的文章的差别之处就在于，很难找到文章的中 心思想，只是罗列了错误并独立的分析，过于平淡，而没有对于文章的核心错误 的把握。 COMMENTARY This outstanding response begins by announcing that the argument " contains several facets that are questionable." The author then develops the critique around three main points: -- the reliability and generalizability of the survey results are open to question; -- the argument assumes that a correlation amounts to a causal rela tionship; and -- there are alternative explanations for the facts uncovered by the s urvey. Each of these points is analyzed insightfully and in great detail. The writer demonstrates mastery of the elements of effective writing. The organization is clear and logical; in fact, the organizational plan outlined in the first paragraph is followed to the letter in the second thro ugh fourth paragraphs. The writing is fluent -- transitions guide the reader from point to poi nt in each paragraph; sentence structures are varied appropriately; dictio n is apt. Minor flaws (e.g., the typographical error "quesiton") do not detract fr om the overall outstanding quality of this critique. For all of these reasons, the essay earns a score of 6. 第三部分： 第三部分：总结 一、开头模式 开头模式 第1篇 第2篇 第3篇 第4篇 第5篇 第6篇 让步=〉忽略他因=〉潜在后果 假让步=〉他因=〉论据不足 让步=〉忽略他因=〉提供他因的论证方向 假让步=〉分析性复述 单纯复述=〉分类=〉忽略他因（前三段都是开头段 指出存在问题=〉调查类错误=〉因果不成立=〉他因awintro 里说要简单的复述一下题目，通过这 6 篇满分文章可以看出，单纯 复述是不够的。我们需要的是，分清文章的逻辑结构，并考虑哪些是合理的，哪 些是不合理的。 写的时候最好先表达出让步的信息以及论据， 然后重点指出存在问题的信息 以及文中相应的论据(没有考虑其他原因，没有考虑其他因素，论据不足)。这里 的错误不要展开， 也不要过于笼统， 最好用几个文中的关键词来统领后面的讨论，
也能避免开头段空洞的弊病。 二、正文 body 模式 正文模式 质疑让步前提=〉两点忽略的他因（人本质，受伤程度）=〉缺乏证据（高 第1篇 档设备） 第2篇 他因=〉两个层次的论据不足（三者关系，75%） 第3篇 第4篇 第5篇 两点忽略的他因（相对比例，平均生活水平）=〉引入实质 他因=〉四点忽略的因素（时间，天气，人数，人活动） 忽略学校和原生态不等价（非学生不受惠，学生中也有不受惠的）第6篇 调查类=〉无因果=〉他因 从安排顺序上来说，比较好的做法是先质疑让步的前提，即讨论一切的基础 (如果有调查，这里就攻击调查);然后论证在主要逻辑链上的忽略的他因;然后如 果时间允许的话，就攻击细节上的东西(从文中的论据不足入手，这里的细节最 好是与上一段的主要逻辑链上的错误相粘连的，可以看作是上一段的延续和引 申，末尾还可以加上极端反例或者文中自相矛盾，从而进行穷追不舍的打击);最 后， 从改进方案上入手， 分析如何才能更好的改进， 这里最好是对原文进行升华， 贴近立意的实质，并以一种包容的态度。 其中，罗列细节上的东西的安排顺序，本着一个原则：从外在因素到内在因 素到事物的本质。 结尾段模式 结尾模式 第1篇 第2篇 第3篇 第4篇 第5篇 第6篇 让步肯定（其本质）=〉提出建议=〉委婉恐吓 提出批评（其本质）=〉提出建议 让步肯定（其本质）=〉提建议（两层，递进式） 让步肯定（其本质）=〉提建议 质疑结论=〉发展=〉推出本质 让步肯定=〉提出建议结尾实际上是最重要的， 因为我们总是能够从结尾段落清晰的看到作者的核 心思想。 关于如何定出核心思想，我在下面第五点中进行解释。请访问考试大网站 /这里有必要解释一下，除了最后一篇文章之外，前五篇文章都有很清晰的中 心思想，正文所有的段落都是为这个中心思想而服务，在论证中不是每个错误都 论证(实际上在一篇 550 字的文章中也很难做到)， 他们只选取与中心思想有关的 东西，而放弃了一些相对细枝末节的错误。同志们，满分范文绝不是把所有的错 误拼凑到一起。 正文论证方法 正文第一段 正文第二段 正文第三段 正文第四
段 加条件后讨论 列举反例 第 1 加条件后讨论 加条件后讨论 （找隐含假设，加常识性条件 （找极 篇 （分类性条件） （常识性条件） 进行反驳） 端） 第2 加条件后讨论 列举他因 列举他因 N/A 篇 （加上倾向性条件质疑） 加条件后讨论 加条件后讨论 第3 加条件后讨论 （加上倾向性的 （加上倾向性条 N/A 篇 （加上常识性条件） 条件） 件） 加条件后讨论 第 4 列举他因， 对比论 （加上倾向性条 N/A N/A 篇 证 件）， 对比论证 加条件后讨论 加条件后讨论 第 5 （加上分类性条 加条件后讨论 （加上常识性条 N/A 篇 件）， （加上原题条件推谬） 件） 对比论证 加条件后讨论 第 6 （加倾向性条 列举他因 列举他因 N/A 篇 件）， 递进论证 平均每篇文章正文段为 3.0 段。请访问考试大网站 / 很明显可以看出来，加条件后讨论是论证的核心方法! 关于这种方法有三点要说明的： 关于这种方法有三点要说明的： 第一，所加的条件分为四种不同情况：倾向性条件，即某些特例，为的是推 出我们想要的结果;分类性条件，即我们把原来的问题是用于事物的不同方面， 从而具体问题具体分析， 在这种论证过程中可能有的部分支持原命题有的部分反 对;常识性条件，即先试图找出原文中的假设，再举出常识与之相矛盾来进行反 对;原题条件，即找出原题中的原文，经过与原文自身其他的条件推演最终反对 原题的结论，使之自相矛盾。 第二，所有的加条件后讨论均要通过三段论式的逻辑推演，列出大前提小前 提，最后给出结论。这里在形式上可以多种多样：可以三句话，也可以通过修饰 语如同位语定语从句等形式。要丰富多变才行，不然就呆板。另外在架构上，当 存在对称两者时一定要进行对比论证;当存在非对称的两者时，要构建起递进关 系进行攻击。(即形式上的让步式攻击) 第三，所有的论证最终都要指向中心思想，指向事物的本质。 其他还有两种论证方法： 列举他因，主要用于攻击因果链的不成立、不充要。 举出极端反例，主要用于在论证中的递进一步的攻击，乘胜追击。 需要注意的是：每当分析出于原文结果矛盾之后，一定要记得提出建议。 文章的立意 文章的立意 第1篇 为了真正保护大家，要全面的考虑设备的效果
第2篇 第3篇 第4篇 第5篇 第6篇要全面的评估教学水准才能不骗学生 要具体讨论广告的操作方案，同时影片本质上改进 为了真正让大家安全，要全面考虑事故升高的原因 不该做任何的改动,只有维持原状才能让每个人都受益 无核心思想，单纯就题论题我们在论证中心中要有数， 知道论证的最终目的是什么， 这就是文章的立意， 文章的灵魂。 比较忌讳的是带着根棒子看文章， 哪里不对就一棒子打下去， 狂骂人家不对， 然后一走了之，剩下伤心的原文在那里哭鼻子。另外，对于第 6 篇文章没有中心 思想这个事实， 我个人是觉得比较遗憾， 如果能像其他 5 篇那样有清晰的立意就 会更好了，个人意见。 如何立意?我们对原文的东西要求同存异，对于合理的要肯定，对于不合理 的要分析哪里不合理，如何使更合理。我们要的是否定之否定，使得事物在螺旋 中成长，即使它不对也要尽量的使它发挥积极的作用，从而不断的完善，不断的 严谨。 总的来说，要让人感觉到我们是有教养的，我们是善良的，我们分析这个文 章是为了使它更好， 我们提出的建议是为了能真正解决广大人民群众的切身利益 的。 文章字数 第1篇 第2篇 第3篇 第4篇 第5篇 624 480 347 510 593第6篇 434 可以看出，最多的 624 字，最少的 347 字。经过统计，平均字数为 498 字， (标准差为 93.33)所以说，500 字左右是比较理想的文章长度。至于论坛上众说 纷纭的是否写得越多就字数越高的问题，我想说一下我的看法：写多少字与分数 没有任何的因果关系。这是 347 字的满分作文所告诉我们的。关键的是能够准 确的找到核心错误，以及在核心问题上论证的是否充分。第二位才是是否全面对 所有大大小小的错误进行论证，从我的直觉来看，这一部分有更好，没有也照样 有希望得满分，前提是上面一点做到了。 我的习作 选取了普遍认为比较难的红肉这题，嘿嘿，主要目的是为了用上前面分析的 结论，所以我写的时候尽量避免任何模版的痕迹。 TOPIC: ARGUMENT142 - The article entitled 'Eating Iron' in last mo nth's issue of Eating for Health reported that a recent study found a corr elation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of h eart disease. Further, it is well established that there is a link between l arge amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease, and red meat i
s high in iron. On the basis of the study and the well-established link between red meat and heart disease, we can conclude that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, then, is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.
字数：600字左右
The link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease appears to be rational, for it is well established as mentioned in the argument. However, the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, cited from a recent study, may mask other factors which also likely to cause the correlation between red meat and heart disease, and, if true, may mislead the direction of the research..
The information of the study provided, such as the respondents’ situation and their natural heritage, is insufficient to justify the correlation, considering that is a root of the argument. As for the respondents, could they represent the entire group of people? Old people, with the increased risk of many kinds of common disease-owing to the worsen condition of health, could possibly increase the risk of heart disease as well. Knowing that in some cases heart disease derives from genetic heritage; it is obvious for such kind of people suffers from heart disease, on account of gene, rather than high levels of iron. Without any specific situation of the respondents, the argument could not convince us that it includes all kinds of people, range from young to old, and free of genetic heritage. In addition, during the process of the study, it is not clear that what the diet, with high levels of iron acquire by respondents, is. Does the diet contains the iron within a particular compound, which would make it difficult to be absorbed, or just the element of iron, which could easily get in? .
Even assuming the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease is existed, the conclusion that such correlation serve as a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease, is logically flawed. The writer makes an assumption that the red meat, which contains iron as claimed, is equal to any diet contained iron, like the one that respondents have. Perhaps this is not the case. Common sense informs us that, in terms of the function and the effect, iron involved in different compounds or just the element is quite diverged. Is the iron in red meat exists as the form such as compound very different from just the element of iron? If so, a survey to research this particular form of iron in the red meat and its correlation with heart disease is necessary.
Besides iron, other elements or compounds in the red meat could also have a impact on the respondents. It is critical to clear that how many compounds and elements exist in the red meat, and most importantly, how they function. Even a fine quantity of these, could impact on the respondents. It is possible that one or several non-iron compounds or elements in the red meat caused the heart disease. Also, it is entirely poss
ible that, the way they cook and the container of the red meat, lead to heart disease. That is to say, maybe there are some heart-disease-related elements on the inside surface of the container, and it is cooked so thoroughly for a long time that these elements have taken off from the container and immerged to the red meat. In that case, the increased risk of heart disease may ascribe to these, other than iron.
Although the correlation between the red meat and the heart disease is well established, we should investigate more details about elements and compounds within the red meat. Without ruling out the influence of these, we could not conclude that the iron contained in the red meat is the cause, which would mislead our effort of research and waste our funding, time and even lives.