Arg-92

In a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.

————————————————————————————————————————-

满分范文赏析

This argument concludes that respondents in the town of Leeville misrepresented their reading habits.  The conclusion is drawn from a discrepancy that appeared between the first study, where respondents indicated that they preferred literary classics and a second study, which revealed that the most frequently checked out book in the public library were mystery books. The conclusion in the argument seems sensible but requires further exploration.

【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：被调查者在第一次调查中隐瞒他们的阅读习惯。接下来分别列举了原文为了支持这个结论引用的证据：即第二次调查表明public library中被借阅最多的是mystery book，论据的归纳用于铺垫出正文段的具体攻击。最后点出原文存在逻辑错误，引出后面的分析。

Firstly, lets consider the fact that the argument does not indicate how much time passed between the two studies. During a long enough period of time a sudden shift in literary consumption could, indeed take place.  Furthermore, the demographic of Leeville could hypothetically have changed since the first study. In either of these cases, it would not be fair to conclude that the initial respondents misrepresented themselves.

【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（错误时间对比）。作者认为先后两次调查间隔时间可能过长，图书馆的literary consumption（图书种类）以及demographic of Leeville（L地区人口情况）都有可能发生情况。因此，仅仅通过这种对比是不能推导出结论的。

Secondly, the argument fails to account for the possibility that the respondents in the first study constitute a different population than public library patrons. Admittedly, both groups are comprised of Leeville citizens. However, it is entirely possible that more highly educated citizens who frequent the University library rather than public libraries, or who purchase books rather than borrow them, are the ones who responded to the first study.

【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：调查类错误（对象不同）。作者认为先后两次调查的对象可能是不同阶层的读者，可能学历高的人会去University library（大学图书馆）或者purchase books（买书）而不是去public library(公立图书馆)。因此，由两种调查对比所得到的结论是靠不住的。

Thirdly, the argument fails to account for the possibility that literary classics, the book type that the first study's respondents indicated they preferred, are not readily available at Leeville's public libraries, making mystery novels a second choice. If this is the case, it provides an alternative explanation for the fact that more mystery novels than literary classics are checked out from Leeville's public libraries.

【此段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第三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】

本段作为正文第三段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：错误因果（忽略他因）。在关于public library的调查中，忽略了literature classics是否readily available(可以轻易借到)这个因素。可能classics classics很少，使得mystery book成了人们借阅的首选。

Finally, the reliability of the first study rests on its statistical integrity. The argument fails to indicate what percentage of the town’s population actually responded to this survey. Nor does the argument indicate how many people were surveyed, or whether the sample was representative of Leeville's general population.

【此段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第四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】

本段作为正文第四段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：调查类错误（对象不同）。作者怀疑到了原文的statistical integrity(数据准确性)。其中有两点：一是调查人群占总数的比例（percentage），二是调查对象的representative(代表性)。如果调查对象的数量和知道存在问题，那么调查所得到的结论是靠不住的。

To sum things up, for one to conclude that respondents in the first study misrepresented their reading habits is untenable.  There are too many alternative explanations for the apparent discrepancy. To strengthen the argument, its proponent must show that the respondents in the first study are representative of Leeville citizens generally, that they are the same respondents, and that both groups are equally likely to check out books from Leeville's public libraries. To better evaluate the argument, we would need to know the length of time between the two studies, and whether any significant demographic changes occurred during this time. We would also need to know the availability of literary classics compared to mystery novels at Leeville's public libraries.

【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“第一次调查中受访者隐瞒了阅读习惯”这一论断是untenable(站不住)的，还有很多其他alternative explanation会影响结果。接下来作者给出几条建议：一要说明研究中的受访者必须representative，前后两组研究要有same respondent且去公立图书馆结果的概率相同。二要说明两次调查的时间间隔还有demographic changes，三要知道公立图书馆中iterary classics和mystery novels 。这几条建议含蓄的隐射前面的错误，前后呼应，文章有力结尾，浑然一体。

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

满分要素剖析

一、语言表达

1. This argument concludes that ... . （标志性的GRE argument开头段首句，列出原文的conclusion） The conclusion is drawn from a discrepancy that appeared between the first study, where ... .（引用原文中为了支撑结论所用到了论据Evidence，此处discrepancy用于介绍两方面事物对比的论据） The conclusion in the argument seems sensible but requires further exploration. （最后提出原文存在Flaw）

2. Thirdly, the argument fails to account for the possibility that literary classics, the book type that the first study's respondents indicated they preferred, are not readily available at Leeville's public libraries, making mystery novels a second choice(标志性的GRE argument论证段开头，动词短语fails to account for指出错误类型为“错误因果”中的“忽略他因”，后面给出了导致相同结果的其他可能性). If this is the case, it provides an alternative explanation for the fact that more mystery novels than literary classics are checked out from Leeville's public libraries.

3. To sum things up, for one to conclude that .... is untenable.  There are too many alternative explanations for the apparent discrepancy. To strengthen the argument, its proponent must show that ... , that ... . To better evaluate the argument, we would need to know ... . We would also need to know ... .

标志性的GRE结尾，先总结原文论点，再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——正文段3——正文段4——结尾段的六段论结构，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。

在正文的第二个论证段中，有一处写的很出彩：Admittedly, both groups are comprised of Leeville citizens. 此句具有让步结构，可以在结构和内容上承接上文，引出下文