Arg-168

The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper:

"Membership in Oak City's Civic Club, a club whose primary objective is to discuss local issues, should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. It is important to restrict membership to city residents because only residents pay city taxes and therefore only residents understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. At any rate, restricting membership in this way is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City, since neighboring Elm City's Civic Club has always had an open membership policy, and only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's Club in the last ten years."

————————————————————————————————————————

满分范文赏析

This speaker of the letter recommends that membership in Oak City's Civic Club, the primary objective of which is to discuss local issues, be limited to local residents only. To support this recommendation, the author claims that since only residents pay local taxes they are the only people who sufficiently understand local business and political issues. The author cites the fact that in the last ten years very few non-residents of Oak City who work in Oak City have joined nearby Elm City's civic club, which is an open club and so the new regulation is not probable to disappoint. The argument is based on two critically flawed elements.  Lets explore them.

【此段结构】

 本段采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即：C – E - F的开头结构，首句概括原文的C(Conclusion)。接下来的一句话概括了原文为了支持他的结论所引用的E(Evidence)。最后尾句中给出开头段到正文段的过渡句，指出原文在逻辑上存在F(Flaw)。

【此段功能】

 本段作为Argument开头段，具体功能就在发起攻击。首先，概括原文的结论：推荐Oak(简称O) City’s Civic Club只给当地居民会员权利。接下来分别列举了原文为了支持这个结论引用的证据：一是因为当地居民交税，所以只有他们才能了解当地的商业和政治；相邻的Elm （简称E）City’s Civic Club采用开放会员制导致当地居民很少加入。最后点出原文存在逻辑错误，引出后面的分析。

To begin with, the letter fails to adequately support the claim that since only residents pay local taxes only they truly understand local business and political issues. Being a taxpayer does not afford one an understanding of local business and political issues.  This is a nonsensical assumption. Moreover, common sense tells me that local business people, residents or not, would probably be more intimately involved in many such issues than local residents who do not have business interests in the town.

【此段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第一个逻辑错误的错误类型和原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

【此段功能】

本段作为正文第一段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：因果类错误。作者认为居民pay tax并不代表他们了解local business和politic。作者认为原文中这种假设是毫无根据的。进一步，作者提出当地的business people应该会对business issue更感兴趣。

In further support of the recommendation, the letter cites the fact that nearby Elm City's civic club is open to any person, yet very few Oak City business people who are not residents have joined Elm City's club in the last ten years. Elm City clubs policy has not been shown to have any relation to Oak City’s policy. It is possible, for instance, that these business people have no connection with Elm City whatsoever, or that these business people have been members of Elm City's civic club for longer than ten years. The author must eliminate these possibilities in order to rely justifiably on this evidence for his or her recommendation.

【此段结构】

 本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第二个逻辑错误的错误类型和原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

【此段功能】

本段作为正文第二段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：错误类比。对于原文中对两城市sick leave的比较，作者应当建立在两城市对本地居民的录用率相同，已经雇员中本地居民的比例相同这两个前提下。原文缺乏对这些前提的说明，所以不能从sick leave比较中得到结论。

In conclusion, the letter's author fails to adequately support the recommendation that Oak City civic club membership should be restricted to local residents. To strengthen the argument, the author should consider clear evidence that non-residents who work in Oak City do not understand local issues as well as residents do. To better evaluate the argument, an audience should be provided more information about why non-resident business people in Oak City have not joined Elm City's civic club during the last ten years.

【此段结构】

 本段采用了标准的Argument结尾段结构，即：C – S的结尾结构，首先再次重申原文的站不住脚的Conclusion，接下来给出给合理建议Suggestion。

【此段功能】

 本段作为Argument结尾段，具体功能就总结归纳+建议措施，首先再次重申原文中“把O地Civic Club会员只限制给当地居民“这一提议不合理，接下来给出是文章更有说服力的合理的建议：同时，他必须另外提供证据说明A公司的新设备新经理使得A公司与Good Intention相比具有higher level。最后vice president还要说明其他公司与这两家公司相比较是怎样的情况。结尾段的三条建议非常规整的隐射前面的三个错误，前后呼应，文章有力结尾，浑然一体。

————————————————————————————————————————

满分因素剖析

一、语言表达

1. This speaker of the letter recommends that ... (标志性的GRE argument开头段首句，转述原文的conclusion) To support this recommendation, the author claims that ... . The author cites the fact that ... （提出原文为了支撑结论所引用的Evidence）The argument is based on two critically flawed elements.  Lets explore them.（最后提出原文存在逻辑上的Flaw）

标志性的GRE argument 开头段结构，采用了C-E-F的结构。

2. In further support of the recommendation, the letter cites the fact that ... . Elm City clubs policy has not been shown to have any relation to Oak City’s policy. It is possible, for instance, that ...  or that ... . The author must eliminate these possibilities in order to rely justifiably on this evidence for his or her recommendation.

标志性的GRE argument “错误类比”攻击体系。

3. In conclusion, the letter's author fails to adequately support the recommendation that ...(标志性的GRE argument结尾段首句，再次重申原文的conclusion存在错误) To strengthen the argument, the author should consider clear evidence that ... . To better evaluate the argument, an audience should be provided more information about ... .（提出使原文更有说服力的合理化建议）

二、逻辑结构

本文内容清晰，逻辑严谨，采用了开头段——正文段1——正文段2——结尾段的四段论结构，文章长短适中，层次一目了然。开头段按照C-E-F的逻辑结构，顺利引出后文的分析。论证段中，从提出错误，到分析错误，到给出可能性，最后总结错误，层次清晰，衔接自然。结尾段总结全文，重申错误，给出合理化建议。这样一篇文章从开头到结尾逻辑严谨，内容清晰，圆满的完成了论证的作用。