寫在前面的話：
　　1、官方范文的重要性不言而喻，大家對官方范文的態(tài)度也有褒有貶，有人說這些6分的官方文章都是大牛寫出來的，我們學(xué)不來，于是有的同學(xué)的重心就轉(zhuǎn)向了北美范文。但有一點是不可否認(rèn)的——官方范文是真的6分，可是ets從來沒承認(rèn)過任何一個北美范文是六分的，盡管也確實都是很好的文章。;
　　2、關(guān)于argument的重要性
　　很多人認(rèn)為argument相對于issue來說容易些，也更好操作些，更容易拿高分。我個人認(rèn)為這是個誤區(qū)。我們最后拿到的成績是個平均分，沒有人知道具體每篇是多少。盡管有的同學(xué)會猜測自己得分是多少多少，但是猜測畢竟是猜測。因為游戲是ets定的，他的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和我們心中接受的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)肯定是不一樣的，打個比方，看看后面第三篇滿分范文，讓一般人看，估計沒有幾個人會毫不猶豫地給滿分，甚至高分，但在ets眼中它就是滿分;另外，實際上新東方的模版寫出來的argu文章和官方范文給出的滿分文章是有很大差別的，主要體現(xiàn)在是一個是零散湊成的(所謂的讓步式攻擊有時只是形式上的)而另一個是有核心思想的，我會在后面的分析中具體說明。既然這樣，那完全有可能最終4分是來源于3分的argue加5分的issue，而不是反之。所以說，我們有可能高估了我們寫argument的能力。
　　3、對于官方范文，實際上這些看上去很天馬行空的文章，潛在的蘊涵了ets所要求的所有要點。之所以很多人看了很多遍沒有看出什么可借鑒的地方，源于兩點：一是沒有和awintro上的要求相對應(yīng)起來看，二是沒有把有限的6篇官方范文進行橫比。。
　　4、本文整體結(jié)構(gòu)：
　　第一部分awintro中A部分重點語句的歸納和梳理，方便與后面的分析相對照。這里所有的英文均一字不差的摘自awintro。同時也作為我的另一篇文章“awintro的解讀”中的argument部分的補充。
　　第二部分是我的對于全部6份官方范文(結(jié)合awintro)的分析，本文屬于個人觀點，一家之言難免存在偏頗和不足之處，懇請大家多多指教。
　　第三部分為總結(jié)。
　　第四部分為了顯示不是純扯淡，并讓我的證明更加具體，我按照我分析出來的結(jié)果也獨立寫了一篇文章，請大家狂拍。
　　注：我把awintro和沒有加入分析的六個范文放在附件里了，歡迎大家下載。
　　5、ets就像是一個羞澀的女孩，從來不會直接告訴我們她想要什么，但同時，也在無時不刻的不在暗示我們她想要什么。

awintro的歸納和整理
　　1、在拿到題目后應(yīng)該找出這些：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?？偨Y(jié)一下：即論據(jù)，結(jié)論，推理過程中的未加證明的假設(shè)，論據(jù)中的潛在后果。這四點都是需要我們盡量展示在第一段里面的。
　　2、同時，還要考慮原題目中的邏輯鏈：In addition, you should consider the structure of the argument。在這過程中更重要的是：sometimes implicit steps in the thinking process and consider whether the movement from each one to the next is logically sound。這是我們攻擊的要點，尤其是隱含的邏輯步驟。
　　3、在分析時：You will not be expected to know methods of analysis or technical terms.隨后在范文中可以看出，幾乎是沒有那種像新東方那樣精確錯誤名詞的，而只是就著錯誤本身的邏輯進行分析。不需要給人感覺咱們特意學(xué)過邏輯，如果拽那些名詞就給人感覺咱們特意學(xué)過邏輯，嘿嘿那既然是專業(yè)的要求也就更加苛刻了。
　　4、awintro中舉一個例子：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.論證的思路為：(1)意識到存在它因you will simply need to see that there are other possible explanations for the improved attendance,(2)提供具體的它因 to offer some common-sense examples, (3)從結(jié)論考慮，怎樣才能使論證完整有力，即如何改進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、官方認(rèn)為的有幾個關(guān)鍵名詞需要解釋，其中analysis這個詞的解釋很重要，很多同學(xué)知道這個詞的意思是分析，但什么是分析就說得不是很清楚了。這里給出了清晰的答案：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。說白了，就是把原題中的三段式論證給打拆開，逐一地進行分析。同樣的analytical writing的核心也就是拆開原命題，分成1串邏輯鏈，然后一部分一部分地討論。
　　6、核心論證方法：找出隱含假設(shè)(并質(zhì)疑)identify as many of its claims, conclusions, and underlying assumptions as possible;尋找它因和尋找反例think of as many alternative explanations and counterexamples as you can;加條件后討論think of what additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the claims;提出改進方案ask yourself what changes in the argument would make the reasoning more sound。同學(xué)們以上四點是核心論證方法!!!所有的滿分范文中都用到了這四種方法。
　　其中，在論證時需要：think of what additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the claims。這里重要的是加上一個常識性條件后，能意識到，有些情況，是支持原命題的。這一點至關(guān)重要，我們是討論，要求同存異，而不是一味的批駁。
　　7、滿分作文的模式：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。先復(fù)述題目，然后清晰的表明觀點，然后發(fā)展。
　　8、高分作文的攻擊順序：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.這里給出了兩種攻擊順序，根據(jù)我讀了一個多月awintro的經(jīng)驗來看，一般官方給出的建議總是越靠后的越好越nb，正如在官方推薦issue觀點的時候總是把平衡觀點放在最后。所以這里比較好的方案是先質(zhì)疑一個核心的假設(shè)，然后再按照原文邏輯來搞。
　　9、6分作文標(biāo)準(zhǔn)：
　　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.
　　原題邏輯順序為：數(shù)據(jù)顯示了對保護裝備的需求==〉展開說明這個數(shù)據(jù)是怎樣顯示這樣的需求的(即用這個裝備有什么效果)==〉結(jié)論：為了達到這個效果我們應(yīng)該重金買這保護設(shè)備。
　　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. 前兩句首先肯定了原命題中值得肯定的地方。這是求同存異的表現(xiàn)。注意這里第一句作者同意原命題的同時，在第二句緊接著就給出了展開的證明。而沒有光是羅列觀點。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. 再說原命題是存在邏輯漏洞的，即它因。這里并沒有展開論證，因為這是全文的中心句，整個文章都在后面給予論證。同時，最后半句給出了論據(jù)中的潛在后果。
　　First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear -- preventative gear (such as light reflecting material) and protective gear (such as helmets). body打頭第一段是屬于攻擊總前提假設(shè)的，作者認(rèn)為這個(即保護性設(shè)備和防護性設(shè)備的差別)是有必要在討論一切之前弄清楚的。論證方法為質(zhì)疑假設(shè)，加條件后討論，提出建議。實際上，這個前提對應(yīng)的就是開頭段的前兩句話。深層的含義就是，盡管我在開頭對你的某一個部分作了讓步似的同意，但是這個同意也是建立在一定的假設(shè)基礎(chǔ)上的，要是這個假設(shè)搞不清楚，哼哼我讓不讓步還不一定呢!本段就來討論這個假設(shè)基礎(chǔ)。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. 這兩句分別從兩個方面進行了論述，為本段第一句話的論證進行服務(wù)，每一方面的具體方法是先定義，再比較。論證方法為加上不同的條件后進行討論，比如前一句話假定只有防護性裝備會怎樣，后一句話假定只有保護性裝備會怎么樣。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. 這里提出了作者的建議，即如何通過進一步的完善使原命題更加的有力。These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial. 如果這個問題(保護防護設(shè)備的差別)解決了后面的討論才能繼續(xù)。所以說，總的來說這一段是討論了原文一個核心的前提。轉(zhuǎn)載自:考試大 - [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.從本段起，連著的三個自然段就是按照原文邏輯鏈的順序進行攻擊和質(zhì)疑。實際上，這三段對應(yīng)的就是開頭段的however之后的話。本段先質(zhì)疑了人的本質(zhì)的差異。論證方法是加條件后討論。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.以上三句話展開證明第一個分支觀點，論證方法就是大名鼎鼎的三段論。加入常識性條件。即本身很注意安全的人配戴保護裝置==〉配戴裝置后就能少出事故==〉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. 以上兩句展開證明第二個分支觀點，論證方法同樣為大名鼎鼎的三段論，加上常識性條件。即街道公園本身不太安全==〉本身注意安全的人會選擇安全的地方==〉來這里的人都是本身不太注意安全的。這里最后一點是我給補充上的，原文沒有論證完全，但是基本的框架還是有的。
　　The statistic also goes not differentiate between severity of injuries.攻擊邏輯鏈的第二步，受傷的程度沒有說清。這里的論證方法核心是質(zhì)疑隱含假設(shè)，加條件后討論。 The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries. 指出原隱含假設(shè)。This is certainly not the case.指出它錯了。 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. 加上人們晚上去滑的人多這個條件后討論，最終削弱原命題。
　　Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality (and presumably more expensive) gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear.攻擊邏輯聯(lián)的第三步，質(zhì)量好的不一定有用。核心論證方法為列舉它因和提出建議。 For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same preventative benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating.簡單的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.
　　建議我們對器材考慮得更加全面些。
　　The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and potentially saves lives.強調(diào)原文的初衷還是很好的，就好像兩個人在那里辯論，范文把原文給說急了，范文怕原文不高興了，就再哄哄他：別看我罵了這么多，你的初衷還是好的嘛!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，于是最終還是委婉的表達了自己的建議。After all, a false confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all. 最后補充論證自己的建議：論證方法為反證法。同時范文在最后嚇唬一嚇原文，告訴他不這樣做的可怕的后果。
　　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."
　　小總結(jié)：
　　(1)分析原題目中可取之處;指出原文中不足之處;推出論據(jù)中的潛在后果。(這里的第一點展開證明，這樣雖然沒有直接復(fù)述題目，但是這三點說完后整個框架就很清楚了
　　(2)正文中第一段質(zhì)疑我認(rèn)為的核心假設(shè)錯誤(從原題目中的可取之處中尋找，要把它唯一一點正確的東西也給質(zhì)疑了)，后三段按原文邏輯順序攻擊三點，如本文中人的本質(zhì)==〉人受的傷的差別==〉為防受傷，買質(zhì)量好的就有用?可以看出，這三點是與原文中三段論式論證環(huán)環(huán)相扣的。這就是前面第一部分講解awintro中提到的analytical writing的具體應(yīng)用。
　　(3)邏輯方面的論證方法為：尋找并質(zhì)疑隱含假設(shè)，列舉它因，加條件(常識性條件，或者限定性條件)后討論，提出建議。
　　(4)在語言方面的論證手法有：分情況討論，舉反例推繆。
　　(5)最后的時候還是要首先肯定原文的可取之處如初衷好啊，然后指出需要思考的更加完善才行。要是思考的不完善會有什么后果。(范文最后一段基本屬于扯淡)

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.
　　原題邏輯順序：UC老師牛==〉UC學(xué)生牛==〉想牛就選擇UCwww.Ｅxamda.CoM考試就上考試大
　　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. 首先承認(rèn)UC的聲望看起來確實不錯，算是部分的同意了原文的觀點，并簡短的展開論證說事因為老師牛。隨后便指出還有他因，但是并沒有展開它因。(留到正文第一段來展開) The Physics and English departments are internationally known, but these are only two of the areas in which one might study. 這里指出論據(jù)的不充足。實際上是在攻擊原文的論據(jù)邏輯鏈。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? 給出了論證：提出兩個問題進行質(zhì)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打頭第一段與開頭段第一句話對應(yīng)，具體提出了他因。同時，還注意到所讓步的內(nèi)容(老師牛學(xué)校就牛)仍然是一致的。質(zhì)疑：老師牛，就能提供牛的教育嗎? Unfortunately, this is often not the case. 一針見血的指出不是這么回事。 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.具體論證：還有其他的因素決定教育的水平的。論證方法為列舉他因。這里的論證給人的感覺就是列的東西多，而且細。
　　This evaluation of the University of Claria is too brief, and too general. 這里對于原文中邏輯鏈中的論據(jù)不足進行證明。實際上就是和開頭段后兩句話(只有兩個系不夠)相對應(yīng)，進一步展開進行證明原文的論據(jù)怎么不充分，我們要全面評估UC除了只知道提供的兩個系的信息外還要知道哪些。Nothing is mentioned about the quality of overall education; it only praises the accomplishments of a few recent graduates and professors.
　　這里屬于復(fù)述原文，立好靶子做好準(zhǔn)備開始攻擊。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?一開始攻擊就一連問了十幾個問題，顯得很雄辯，這里問了這么多問題，核心只有一個，學(xué)校老師學(xué)生之間三角關(guān)系到底怎么樣。具體論證是先說師生關(guān)系(老師對待學(xué)生怎么樣，學(xué)生對待老師怎么樣)，再說學(xué)校和學(xué)生(學(xué)校給學(xué)生提供了哪些便利)，最后說學(xué)校和老師和學(xué)生的關(guān)系(老師通過學(xué)校為了提高給學(xué)生的教育提出了什么意見么).可以說是層層遞進，還是很有章法的!論證手法為列舉他因。
　　What about that 75% employment record? 這里質(zhì)疑了邏輯鏈中的另一個論據(jù)，即畢業(yè)生找工作的數(shù)據(jù)也能推出學(xué)校牛。核心論證方法為質(zhì)疑假設(shè)，提出建議。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. 這里論證方法為質(zhì)疑假設(shè)(是否是工作在喜歡的專業(yè))，我觀察到這里并沒有給出質(zhì)疑后的結(jié)果的展開。也許作者認(rèn)為展開后的結(jié)果是不言而喻的所以就不再展開細說了。這就是作者大牛之處，他懂得駕馭知道什么地方說到多少就夠了，所以越是大牛的文章就越是短。這個文章就很短。而對于我們來說，它的論證思路是一定要接受，但是為了保險起見，還是把每個論點發(fā)展完全比較好，比如在這里加上：要是他們不在自己的最喜歡專業(yè)工作，說明他們還是沒有足夠的實力讓自己喜歡的工作接受自己，從而說明母校的教育也沒有那么牛啊。我們論證的越充分，顯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.提出了建議，使得論證更有力。
　　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. 這篇文章在最后沒有肯定原文的初衷，而是不留情面的批評!這是要看具體題目的，像這樣的廣告，本來就沒有多么高尚的目的。而上一篇范文人家不管邏輯有多差，但人家總是抱著善良的一顆心，為了保護大家的生命安全啊!所以說，我們對于原命題的立意心里要有數(shù)。 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.最后還是提出了整體的宏觀的建議改進意見。
　　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 -- omitted 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.
　　原文邏輯順序：看電影觀眾減少==〉評論人好評增加==〉觀眾不關(guān)注評論==〉我們要增加廣告費投資并減少電影投資
　　WSAMPLE-1 (score 6)www.Ｅxamda.CoM考試就上考試大
　　The argument presented above is relatively sound, however, the author fails to recognize all the elements necessary to evaluate his situation. 這句話也很摸版化，但是重點分析一下這里evaluate his situation，讀了后面幾段，我們會知道全是在考慮對外界的評估的。所以這一句話就指明了論證的核心，可以說統(tǒng)領(lǐng)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.'
　　這句話實際上是在進行讓步，承認(rèn)了廣告還是有用的，但是原因不同。點明了論證主題句，下面幾段全是圍繞著讓廣告更有效這個主題來寫的，正如官方評語中就提到了本文有個明顯的中心句，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.這句話是對主題句的補充，提供了幾種具體的他因的論證方向，更重要的作用是，把主題句給打拆開幾個小的分枝論點，從而方便下面的討論。
　　The advertising director first needs to determine the relative proportion of movie goers that choose to see Silver Screen films. 第一個需要對外界進行的評估就是人群中選擇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. 這幾句話是對分枝論點的三段式演繹，即總體人數(shù)減少，她有可能還有競爭力，只要他的相對份額更多，競爭能力強，有可能他掙的更多 Determining where he stands in his market will help him to create and implement an action plan.最終的an action plan不就是廣告嗎，在段末尾很明顯(盡管換了個詞)的點了一下題。
　　Another important thing to consder is the relative cost of attending movies to the current standard of living. 第二個需要考慮的就是當(dāng)前的人們平均生活水平。 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.這幾句話是環(huán)環(huán)相扣的，論證方法為加條件后討論，三段論式演繹，即人們生活水平降低==〉總體上看電影的人變少==〉廣告強調(diào)電影最低價會很有效==〉廣告這時是很有效的。經(jīng)過一番的推導(dǎo)，最終還是指向了中心觀點，就是廣告還是很有幫助的。這是又一次的很好的點題。我們仔細比較二三兩段就會發(fā)現(xiàn)，在論證結(jié)構(gòu)上有著很好的對應(yīng)，是非常工整的對仗。
　　Finally, it is important to remember that people rarely trust movie reviewers.第三個需要考慮的就是人們的信任問題。這里通過論證使得最后推導(dǎo)出中心觀點的后半句話，至此全文的邏輯鏈論證就比較完善了。
　　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.最后通過三段論的演繹，使得廣告效應(yīng)逐漸向拿出錢真正搞點好電影這個觀點上過渡。我認(rèn)為這是全文的亮點。觸及到了事物的本質(zhì)的改變才是最有意義的，使得在前兩段的論證的基礎(chǔ)上，通過本文的論證使得討論更加的深入，更加的務(wù)實。
　　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. 本文的滿分的另一個有利保障就是最后一段的精準(zhǔn)的概括，可以說，最后一段總結(jié)了全文的態(tài)度，使得考官看完最后一段能迅速找到全文的論證核心。這是有必要的 Furthermore, the company must consider carefully what it chooses to emphasize in its advertisement.這一段同時給出了建議改進方案。最后，本文實在是相當(dāng)?shù)亩?，之所以這么短，是因為省去了開頭復(fù)述原題，省去了單列一段質(zhì)疑讓步的假設(shè)，比如說這里的讓步是廣告是有用的，所以就要質(zhì)疑在什么時候是有用的，如果再加上這樣一段外加演繹的話就會更好。同樣，這篇文章語言十分的簡潔，基本上沒有廢話，沒有所謂的亮點詞句，這也許是給我們的啟發(fā)，告訴我們更應(yīng)該關(guān)注什么：立論點以及安排方式以及論證方式。這三個論點的安排是：市場規(guī)模==〉人民生活標(biāo)準(zhǔn)==〉人不相信評論家==〉人對于質(zhì)量的要求，順序是從外在條件到內(nèi)在條件。
　　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.
　　原題邏輯順序：6月前F提高限速==〉F事故升高==〉E沒提高限速反而事故略減少==〉F要想減少事故就不能提高限速
　　6分：
　　The agrument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. 這一句話指出原文存在邏輯問題，這里用的語言很簡單。而不是北美范文中有時堆徹了一堆放之四海皆為準(zhǔn)的無關(guān)痛癢的話。很明顯，官方的意思是說這樣的客套話一定要說，但是一定要用最簡潔的形式來說，而同時那些具體問題具體分析性的語言則要詳細的說明白，說清楚。 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.這個開頭真的非常巧，因為他用一句話達到了兩句話的效果，即同時復(fù)述題目并指出問題在哪，而沒有像北美一樣說結(jié)論是什么證據(jù)是什么證據(jù)再說不能支持結(jié)論。設(shè)想一下如果我們是考官的話看到這樣的一個開頭得到了一個什么信息呢：此考生已經(jīng)完全讀懂題目了，并且他對原文的邏輯順序也已經(jīng)掌握了。深一點層次來說：aw考試考得是我們的分析能力，這是重點。雖然官方說明也曾經(jīng)強調(diào)理解原文很重要，但是終歸理解能力并不是考試的重點。所以比較好的做法是：分析題目的脈絡(luò)，寫出分析性的概括。這里沒有必要單獨再復(fù)述題目了因為在分析中已經(jīng)暗含了原文的信息。這里還有一點值得注意：為什么要在第二句話的最前面用comparison這個詞呢，這是有講究的!原文的論證核心就是比較，而這里將此詞提到最前面一是說這是原文的邏輯關(guān)聯(lián)，二是暗示我下面要做的就是圍繞著此比較而進行的。有點類似于主題句的主干提前。這個詞真的是令人發(fā)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. 這一段是質(zhì)疑一個假設(shè)的前提。從前面的幾個范文的分析我們可以看出來，正文body首段質(zhì)疑的都是作者讓步的前提，那么這里的讓步在哪里呢，開頭段并沒有提到阿。確實沒有在第一段提到讓步。但是別著急，在最后一段的第一句，出現(xiàn)了讓步(即since后面的兩點理由)，這不就又對應(yīng)上了嗎!讓步說F這些市民可能是因為自己的利益或者保護自己的安全才建議取消限速的。那么這里的前提就是是F因為限速才使事故增加的。這一段將這個前提狠狠的質(zhì)疑了一番。論證方法為列舉他因。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. 列舉了三點他因，有兩點值得注意：一是這里作者前兩點都沒有詳細展開，但這是不是意味著對于比較常識性的例子不用展開呢，不是!同志們，展開并不只有三段論式展開才是展開，誰說這里沒有展開呢?作者實際上已經(jīng)通過定語同位語進行展開了!!比如younger, inexperienced,和elderly, unsafe就是互相補充阿，所以說我們在給出常識性的例子時，要注意通過修飾語的方式進行暗中的展開。判斷我們證明的是否嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)是否充足，可以這樣：完全只是用我們提供的信息來推，能不能推出最后的結(jié)果。而最后一點展開的則較為充分，這里看來是因為最后一點有點過于寬泛，必須要進行詳細具體解釋才行。更深一層次的來說作者對于例子的安排也是有詳有略，給人錯落有致的感覺，美。另外一點值得注意的就是，這三個論證中無一例外的都進行了EF的比較，照應(yīng)了開頭給出的comparison這個詞，作者兌現(xiàn)了自己在開頭的暗示。 It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area. 這里作者的論證向前進了一步：前面提出了很多的他因，但光提出他因是不夠的，我們心里一定要想著提出他因是干什么的。這里指出了他因究竟如何來利用，使得證明原文。即應(yīng)該多考慮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.這和上一句是相照應(yīng)的，屬于對比性的論證，剛才說F有了他因所以不是限速能解決，這里有說了E也許也是他因才使得情況稍好。整個段落是多么整齊的對仗阿!EF兩地的對比無處不在，而又那么的工整!作者在開頭第二句話的Comparison一詞真的是統(tǒng)領(lǐng)全文的阿!正所謂指哪打哪。
　　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.從這一段開始攻擊原文邏輯鏈。本段有四個分論點，本來應(yīng)該寫四段的。(至于為什么沒有寫三段，我想是因為awintro中說我們可以隨意的選擇段落的數(shù)量，并不會影響最后的結(jié)果。但是，這樣的話前提是閱卷人有足夠的耐心。所以為了保險起見，讓人看著更為清楚些，我還是建議大家分開寫)這里第一個攻擊的就是6個月時間夠不夠。It is mentioned in the argument that Elmsford accidents decreased during the time period. 這一句話的目的在于復(fù)述原文條件，立起靶子。從這里開始攻擊第二點，即天氣的影響。 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. 對E的論證采用的是經(jīng)典三段論，即天氣差==〉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. 再次進行了EF對比，通過coerced后面的從句進行推演，屬于小展開。也足夠充分。 Again, the demographics of the population are important. 這里對邏輯鏈的第三點進行了攻擊。即人口數(shù)量的問題。 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. 先說E的人可能少。論證方法是加條件后討論。 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. 再說F的人可能多。論證方法同要是加條件后討論。 Also in reference to the activities of the population, 最后攻擊邏輯鏈的第四點，即人們活動的時間。(品味一下本段四個邏輯錯誤的安排順序，時間==)天氣==)人數(shù)==〉人的活動，看似無關(guān)，還是很有講究的阿，這不正是從外在因素到內(nèi)在因素嗎)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.第四點的論證同樣是采用了兩者的對比。看來作者真是說到做到阿，竟然沒有一次論證沒有對比的!!論證方法為加條件后討論。
　　Overall, the reasoning behind decreasing Forestville's speed limit back to its original seems logical as presented above since the citizens are acting in their own best interests and want to protect their safety. 原來讓步在這呢!其實作者心里一直有數(shù)，只是沒寫出來。但是在正文body的第一段已經(jīng)就其假設(shè)進行了討論。我想我們不是作者這樣的牛人，這樣的讓步還是很有必要在第一段體現(xiàn)出來的。 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.最后提出了建議。我們看到作者對于文章的立意把握得很好，要是換我們來寫，可能會寫限速怎么不好啊。而這文章中限速不管怎么說總是有好的一面，只是常識!所以作者的立意為：不是說限速不好，而是說要考慮全。引申一下，我們一定要對文章的立意有個把握。文章無非就三種立意，一種是好的(就像這樣的為了安全的(比如skate范文))，一種就是不好不壞的(就像為了利益的為了利潤(什么掙錢多啊))，一種是不好的(就像有個說不應(yīng)該取消安全帶規(guī)定，還有詆毀某人的)。這三種立意的寫法可是完全不同的阿!對于第一種，切記要委婉!最好就是避而不談，而說應(yīng)該考慮更全面。對于后面兩種，嘿嘿，就得狠點了，尤其是最后一種，就是譴責(zé)。后面的文章我會給出分析。
　　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 newspaper.
　　"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."
　　原文邏輯順序：五年前投票決定某地保持原生態(tài)==〉原生態(tài)可用來做公園讓大家受益==〉現(xiàn)在有人建議蓋學(xué)校==〉蓋學(xué)校就要改此地為操場==〉建操場是唯一能此地還保持原生態(tài)的方案(暗含假設(shè)為操場就是原生態(tài))
　　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.這里是復(fù)述題目的前半部分，即五年前人們的看法以及理由。基本上沒有加入任何分析。
　　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.這里復(fù)述題目的后半部分，即現(xiàn)在要蓋學(xué)校，作者認(rèn)為蓋學(xué)校會有什么效果，以及蓋學(xué)校是唯一的辦法。同志們，第一第二段都是單純的復(fù)述題目，只是稍加了一點層次感，但是幾乎沒有加上任何分析，以及態(tài)度。這實際上是這篇范文的敗筆之處。后面的官方評語就是這樣說的，說開頭段太猶豫了(評語第一段)，并說可以做得更好的(評語最后一段)。所以說這篇文章的開頭是考官所不喜歡的，但是為什么也能得滿分呢，因為他后面的論證確實很充分，另外也是因為本題本身也真的很難讀懂，寫到這份上已經(jīng)不容易了。Awintro里面說了，最后的成績是看整個文章的整體效果，那么這篇文章雖然有缺點，但還有更大的優(yōu)點，所以總體是很好的，所以得了滿分。從六篇范文的評語里也可以看出來，在這6個滿分文章中，有些文章是次滿分的，有些文章是滿分的，而有些文章是超滿分的。我們要做的就是找出每篇文章的優(yōu)點和缺點，最后匯集優(yōu)點避免缺點寫出一個到處全是優(yōu)點的文章，那不就是超超超滿分了。當(dāng)然了，這是扯淡，不可能到處都是優(yōu)點，只能盡量吧。言歸正傳，這文章的開頭應(yīng)該改進成在簡短一點復(fù)述題目，至少并成一段，然后加上自己的觀點，到底哪里值得后面討論。
　　This letter is a one-sided argument about the best use of the land known as Scott Woods. 這里開始分析了，先說是片面的。論證手法為加條件后討論。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. 這里先加上不同的條件，討論不同的后果，很好的手法阿!你可能會問，他哪里討論了?沒發(fā)展討論哪!其實，當(dāng)假定作者為教師時，已經(jīng)在教師的后面的定語從句中給出了充分的演繹，這就是小發(fā)展，這就是awintro里強調(diào)無數(shù)次的cogently，發(fā)展于無形之間，我們在寫作文的時候也要學(xué)會噢。Regardless of who the author is, there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore.這一句話很重要，把前面的假設(shè)的變量給排除了，為后面的論證掃清了障礙。
　　Using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for a natural parkland. 這里指出的是文章的核心的最大的錯誤，即學(xué)校操場不等于原生態(tài)。這種論證順序和其他的不同，沒有讓步，也沒有質(zhì)疑假設(shè)?？傮w的論證順序為先討論一個大的問題，然后再討論與此大問題相關(guān)聯(lián)的一些小問題。同志們可能要問了這是什么套路阿?其實awintro也推薦過這樣的套路,”考試大論壇
　　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. 這里是分支觀點，把原命題給拆分成兩個部分以供下面討論。 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.先說學(xué)校操場怎么樣(有人不受益)。On the other hand, anyone can go to a park and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness. 再說原生態(tài)公園怎么樣。(每人受益) The use of the land for a school would destroy the benefit of a park for everyone. 基于以上兩點，這句話得出了結(jié)論：建學(xué)校操場會不如原生態(tài)公園好。這個論證還是三段論! 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.上一句結(jié)論的正話反說。本句話很關(guān)鍵!為后一段埋下伏筆。屬于邏輯過渡句。
　　Another point the author stresses is that the use of the land for things like athletic fields somehow rationalizes the destruction of the park.本段是上一段的延續(xù)，還是圍繞著中心問題進行討論。我們注意到上一段說學(xué)校不能使每一個人受益，只能使其中一部分適齡年輕人收益，這一段就問了：這些適齡年輕人真的受益了嗎?所以說是上一段的一個深究，論證的很深入。本段論證方法為列舉反例。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.這里的論證一下去，原文徹底傻了，原來就算是學(xué)生也不能夠就一定受益阿!這種論證方式，屬于遞進式攻擊。其內(nèi)涵的邏輯聯(lián)系之緊密，讓人不由得贊嘆!牛!這兩段是文章最出彩的地方，也是文章在開頭不好的情況下能力挽狂瀾得到滿分的秘密武器。"
　　The author's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this...""is easily arguable. 最后文章再質(zhì)疑了結(jié)論的可靠性。 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. 先說建學(xué)校這事壓根就不靠譜。為什么呢?
　　后面給出了解釋。 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. 這里通過和購物中心比，得出了結(jié)論說當(dāng)初的投票就是為了大家。這個論證也是全文的亮點，因為他是用原文的條件來攻擊原文，它認(rèn)為購物中心的收入已經(jīng)是相當(dāng)高了，但即使這么高的收入也沒有原生態(tài)公園給每個人帶來的收益高，更何況是收益還不如購物中心的學(xué)校呢。這里更深層次的隱含意思是：購物中心是所有投資中利潤最高的，這都不行，所以任何的改動都是不行的。就必須要保持原生態(tài)公園。這里作者的思想多么的銳利。一下子就揪住了原文的一項自我矛盾的地方。The only way to do this is to keep it in an undeveloped state.Using the land for a school does not accomplish this.最終提出了作者的建議。
　　COMMENTARY考試大－中國教育考試門戶網(wǎng)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.
　　原文邏輯順序：用SB的最易帶牙套==〉早用比晚用SB的易帶牙套，每天用兩次SB的更易帶牙套==〉想不帶牙套就不用SB。
　　注：這篇文章大家一看肯定特別有親切感，因為這和新東方摸版和北美范文摸版非常的像!甚至，我懷疑，這就是后兩者的原型。這些研究考試的人發(fā)現(xiàn)這篇文章具有很好的操作性，并看上去結(jié)構(gòu)特別清晰。所以也就照葫蘆畫瓢。如果是這樣的話，研究這個原版的價值就不言而喻了。
　　The argument contains several facets that are questionable. 段首句指出存在問題，同樣沒有過多的修飾，簡潔明快。使文章迅速轉(zhuǎn)移到后面的實質(zhì)性分析。 First, the reliability and generalizability of the survey are open to quesiton. 指出第一個問題是調(diào)查類問題，并具體說出了是樣本可信度和樣本代表性，實際上這和后面的論證是對應(yīng)的。 In addition, the argument assumes a correlation amounts to a causal relationship. 指出第二個問題，是因果關(guān)系。 The argument also fails to examine alternative explanations. 指出第三個問題，沒有提出上面因果關(guān)系的他因。 I will discuss each of these facets in turn.第一段簡潔明了，三個攻擊點統(tǒng)領(lǐng)下面三段。這里對原文的復(fù)述似乎并不詳細。因為原文的邏輯鏈很簡單，作者不用向我們證明他讀懂了，我們也知道他肯定讀懂了。不像第五個范文那樣，讀個原題就得半天。實際上，這里的重點放在了后面的分析上，同時在后面的分析中也包含了復(fù)述原題中的每一個條件。
　　In evaluating the evidence of the survey, one must consider how the survey was conducted. 第一點：考慮調(diào)查類問題。分為兩個分支論點，一個是有傾向的問題，一個是被調(diào)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. 這里論證是否問卷中有l(wèi)oaded問題，方法為加條件后討論。One must also consider how broad the survey was. 這里論證被調(diào)查者的代表性。方法還是加條件后討論，三段式論證。 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 people. 這又是典型的三段式論證：如果只是個別醫(yī)生的個別病人==〉有可能歸因于是個別現(xiàn)象==〉得到的結(jié)論無法推廣到整體。 In addition, even if the survey was broader, one must consider whether it was limited in certain ways.看到這里，一下子就想起了新東方，這正是他們極力推薦的層層讓步式論證，后面一段也是這樣的論證。論證方法為列舉他因。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.舉了兩個他因，注意到這里用的是問句，官方范文是很喜歡用問句的。
　　Even if one accepts the survey results, the argument remains questionable. 作了一下讓步，開始攻擊因果關(guān)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. 這里就復(fù)述題目了，同時也是立起靶子，等待攻擊。 But the argument fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion.指出沒有證據(jù)顯示有因果關(guān)系。先打拆開關(guān)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.這里舉出了個他因，甚至有點想逆轉(zhuǎn)原來的因果關(guān)系的意思，從而使已經(jīng)打拆開的因果關(guān)系分的更加清楚。
　　Finally, the argument's author fails to rule out alternative explanations.這里繼續(xù)打拆上一段打開的因果關(guān)系，提出了他因，就像往傷口上撒一把鹽。打個比方，女生家長為了不讓女兒和一個男生在一起，就先把他兩個給隔離起來，然后最狠的就是，給那個男生找一個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. 舉出第一種可能性。Weak結(jié)論(一天兩次更易帶牙套)。 It might also be the case that starting with SMILEBRIGHT early in life damages the teeth so that capped teeth will be needed later.
　　舉出第二種可能性。Strengthen原結(jié)論(早用早帶牙套)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.舉出第三種可能。論證方法為加條件后討論，討論采用三段式。來源：考試大的美女編輯們
　　In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logocal at first, has several flaws as discussed above. 這句話很經(jīng)典，摸版性很強。 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.
　　給出第一條建議是針對沒有因果關(guān)系的那段的。It could be further improved by ruling out alternative explanations for the supposed causal relationship.給出的第二條建議是針對因果關(guān)系中提供他因的那段?？偟膩砜?，這里的提建議的方式以及位置都和新東方和北美范文很像。最后，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)這文章所指出的邏輯錯誤都是大錯誤，那種脊梁骨似的錯誤，而對于小錯誤，比如他們report則不予討論，看得出來，官方的意思是，無論什么文章，都最優(yōu)先挑核心邏輯鏈中的重點錯誤，小錯誤能挑出來更好，但沒有也沒關(guān)系，前提是大錯誤都挑出來了并且論證充分。本文與前面的文章的差別之處就在于，很難找到文章的中心思想，只是羅列了錯誤并獨立的分析，過于平淡，而沒有對于文章的核心錯誤的把握。
　　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 relationship; and
　　-- there are alternative explanations for the facts uncovered by the survey.
　　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 through fourth paragraphs.
　　The writing is fluent -- transitions guide the reader from point to point in each paragraph; sentence structures are varied appropriately; diction is apt.
　　Minor flaws (e.g., the typographical error "quesiton") do not detract from the overall outstanding quality of this critique.
　　For all of these reasons, the essay earns a score of 6.

　第三部分：總結(jié)
　　一、開頭模式

	開頭模式
第1篇	讓步=〉忽略他因=〉潛在后果
第2篇	假讓步=〉他因=〉論據(jù)不足
第3篇	讓步=〉忽略他因=〉提供他因的論證方向
第4篇	假讓步=〉分析性復(fù)述
第5篇	單純復(fù)述=〉分類=〉忽略他因（前三段都是開頭段
第6篇	指出存在問題=〉調(diào)查類錯誤=〉因果不成立=〉他因

	正文模式
第1篇	質(zhì)疑讓步前提=〉兩點忽略的他因（人本質(zhì)，受傷程度）=〉缺乏證據(jù)（高檔設(shè)備）
第2篇	他因=〉兩個層次的論據(jù)不足（三者關(guān)系，75%）
第3篇	兩點忽略的他因（相對比例，平均生活水平）=〉引入實質(zhì)
第4篇	他因=〉四點忽略的因素（時間，天氣，人數(shù)，人活動）
第5篇	忽略學(xué)校和原生態(tài)不等價（非學(xué)生不受惠，學(xué)生中也有不受惠的）
第6篇	調(diào)查類=〉無因果=〉他因

　　從安排順序上來說，比較好的做法是先質(zhì)疑讓步的前提，即討論一切的基礎(chǔ)(如果有調(diào)查，這里就攻擊調(diào)查);然后論證在主要邏輯鏈上的忽略的他因;然后如果時間允許的話，就攻擊細節(jié)上的東西(從文中的論據(jù)不足入手，這里的細節(jié)最好是與上一段的主要邏輯鏈上的錯誤相粘連的，可以看作是上一段的延續(xù)和引申，末尾還可以加上極端反例或者文中自相矛盾，從而進行窮追不舍的打擊);最后，從改進方案上入手，分析如何才能更好的改進，這里最好是對原文進行升華，貼近立意的實質(zhì)，并以一種包容的態(tài)度。
　　其中，羅列細節(jié)上的東西的安排順序，本著一個原則：從外在因素到內(nèi)在因素到事物的本質(zhì)。

	結(jié)尾模式
第1篇	讓步肯定（其本質(zhì)）=〉提出建議=〉委婉恐嚇
第2篇	提出批評（其本質(zhì)）=〉提出建議
第3篇	讓步肯定（其本質(zhì)）=〉提建議（兩層，遞進式）
第4篇	讓步肯定（其本質(zhì)）=〉提建議
第5篇	質(zhì)疑結(jié)論=〉發(fā)展=〉推出本質(zhì)
第6篇	讓步肯定=〉提出建議

	正文第一段	正文第二段	正文第三段	正文第四段
第1篇	加條件后討論 （分類性條件）	加條件后討論 （常識性條件）	加條件后討論 （找隱含假設(shè)，加常識性條件進行反駁）	列舉反例 （找極端）
第2篇	列舉他因	列舉他因	加條件后討論 （加上傾向性條件質(zhì)疑）	N/A
第3篇	加條件后討論 （加上傾向性的條件）	加條件后討論 （加上傾向性條件）	加條件后討論 （加上常識性條件）	N/A
第4篇	列舉他因，對比論證	加條件后討論 （加上傾向性條件）， 對比論證	N/A	N/A
第5篇	加條件后討論 （加上分類性條件）， 對比論證	加條件后討論 （加上常識性條件）	加條件后討論 （加上原題條件推謬）	N/A
第6篇	加條件后討論 （加傾向性條件）， 遞進論證	列舉他因	列舉他因	N/A

　　平均每篇文章正文段為3.0段。請訪問考試大網(wǎng)站http://www./
　　很明顯可以看出來，加條件后討論是論證的核心方法!
　　關(guān)于這種方法有三點要說明的：
　　第一，所加的條件分為四種不同情況：傾向性條件，即某些特例，為的是推出我們想要的結(jié)果;分類性條件，即我們把原來的問題是用于事物的不同方面，從而具體問題具體分析，在這種論證過程中可能有的部分支持原命題有的部分反對;常識性條件，即先試圖找出原文中的假設(shè)，再舉出常識與之相矛盾來進行反對;原題條件，即找出原題中的原文，經(jīng)過與原文自身其他的條件推演最終反對原題的結(jié)論，使之自相矛盾。
　　第二，所有的加條件后討論均要通過三段論式的邏輯推演，列出大前提小前提，最后給出結(jié)論。這里在形式上可以多種多樣：可以三句話，也可以通過修飾語如同位語定語從句等形式。要豐富多變才行，不然就呆板。另外在架構(gòu)上，當(dāng)存在對稱兩者時一定要進行對比論證;當(dāng)存在非對稱的兩者時，要構(gòu)建起遞進關(guān)系進行攻擊。(即形式上的讓步式攻擊)
　　第三，所有的論證最終都要指向中心思想，指向事物的本質(zhì)。
　　其他還有兩種論證方法：
　　列舉他因，主要用于攻擊因果鏈的不成立、不充要。
　　舉出極端反例，主要用于在論證中的遞進一步的攻擊，乘勝追擊。
　　需要注意的是：每當(dāng)分析出于原文結(jié)果矛盾之后，一定要記得提出建議。

	文章的立意
第1篇	為了真正保護大家，要全面的考慮設(shè)備的效果
第2篇	要全面的評估教學(xué)水準(zhǔn)才能不騙學(xué)生
第3篇	要具體討論廣告的操作方案，同時影片本質(zhì)上改進
第4篇	為了真正讓大家安全，要全面考慮事故升高的原因
第5篇	不該做任何的改動,只有維持原狀才能讓每個人都受益
第6篇	無核心思想，單純就題論題

第1篇	624
第2篇	480
第3篇	347
第4篇	510
第5篇	593
第6篇	434

　　可以看出，最多的624字，最少的347字。經(jīng)過統(tǒng)計，平均字?jǐn)?shù)為498字，(標(biāo)準(zhǔn)差為93.33)所以說，500字左右是比較理想的文章長度。至于論壇上眾說紛紜的是否寫得越多就字?jǐn)?shù)越高的問題，我想說一下我的看法：寫多少字與分?jǐn)?shù)沒有任何的因果關(guān)系。這是347字的滿分作文所告訴我們的。關(guān)鍵的是能夠準(zhǔn)確的找到核心錯誤，以及在核心問題上論證的是否充分。第二位才是是否全面對所有大大小小的錯誤進行論證，從我的直覺來看，這一部分有更好，沒有也照樣有希望得滿分，前提是上面一點做到了。

我的習(xí)作
　　選取了普遍認(rèn)為比較難的紅肉這題，嘿嘿，主要目的是為了用上前面分析的結(jié)論，所以我寫的時候盡量避免任何模版的痕跡。
　　TOPIC: ARGUMENT142 - The article entitled 'Eating Iron' in last month's issue of Eating for Health reported that a recent study found a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. Further, it is well established that there is a link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease, and red meat is 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?jǐn)?shù)：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 possible 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.