Argument 25
The following was written as a part of an application for a small business loan by a group of developers in the city of Monroe:
"A jazz music club in Monroe would be a tremendously profitable enterprise. Currently, the nearest jazz club is 65 miles away; thus, our proposed club, the C Note, would have the local market all to itself. Plus, jazz is extremely popular in Monroe: over 100,000 people attended Monroe's jazz festival last summer, several well-known jazz musicians live in Monroe, and the highest-rated radio program in Monroe is 'Jazz Nightly,' which airs every weeknight. Finally, a nationwide study indicates that the typical jazz fan spends close to $1,000 per year on jazz entertainment. It is clear that the C Note cannot help but make money."
【满分范文赏析】
This loan applicant claims that a jazz club in Monroe would be a profitable venture. To support this claim the applicant points out that a jazz club in Monroe would face no competition, as the nearest club is 65 miles away. He also cites various other evidences that jazz is popular among Monroe residents. Careful examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the applicant's claim.
【本段结构】
本文采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即C—A—F的开头结构。本段首先概括原文的Conclusion，之后简要提及原文为支持其结论所引用的一系列Assumption及细节，最后给出开头段到正文段的过渡句，指出原文的Flaw，即这些Assumption无法让原文逻辑上没有问题。
【本段功能】
作为Argument开头段，本段具体功能就在于发起攻击并概括原文的结论，即在Monroe地区开办一个爵士乐俱乐部是有利可图的。本段接下来提到了原文中为支持之前的Conclusion所提供的证据，包括，在该地区不存在竞争对手，以及在该地区爵士乐非常流行。文章提及这些信息，为是在正文段中对这些Assumption即将进行的具体攻击做铺垫。
First of all, if the demand for a live jazz club in Monroe were as great as the applicant claims, it seems that Monroe should already have one or more such clubs. The fact that the closest jazz club is 65 miles away reveals a point of uncertainty, which should be reserved for further study. Since the applicant has not adequately responded to this concern, his claim that the proposed club would be profitable is untenable.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第一个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。
【本段功能】
作为正文第一段，本段攻击原文所犯的第一个重要逻辑错误——因果类错误。原文当中提到，虽然爵士乐在当地很流行，但是在Monroe当地并没有爵士乐俱乐部，所以在Monroe并不存在俱乐部的竞争者。但相反，这个假设的因果关系可能被颠倒了，即正是因为爵士乐在当地需求量不高导致当地不存在爵士乐俱乐部。所以，原文当中的这个观点不合理。
Secondly, the popularity of Monroe's annual jazz festival and of its nightly jazz radio show initially appears to lend support to the applicant's claim. However, it is entirely possible that the vast majority of festival attendees are out-of-town visitors. Moreover, the author provides no evidence that radio listeners would be interested in going out to hear live jazz. For that matter, the radio program might actually pose competition for the C-Note club, especially considering that the program airs during the evening.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第二个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。
【本段功能】
作为正文第二段，本段攻击原文所犯的第二个重要逻辑错误——类比类错误。原文假设根据去年的爵士音乐节参加的人数来看，Monroe当地人对爵士乐非常喜欢。但是，原文错误的将参加音乐节的人类比为当地的人，这样是不具有说服力的。此外，喜欢参加音乐节，并不代表喜欢去俱乐部听现场的音乐。在没有考虑到这些因素的情况下，原文的这个类比假设是没有说服力的。
Thirdly, while several well-known jazz musicians live in Monroe, their residing in Monroe lend little significant support to the applicant's claim. It is entirely possible that these musicians perform elsewhere, perhaps at the club located 65 miles away. This would go a long way toward explaining why Monroe does not currently have a jazz club, and it would weaken the applicant's assertion that the C-Note would be profitable.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第三个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。
【本段功能】
作为正文第三段，本段攻击原文所犯的第三个重要逻辑错误——因果类错误。原文假设因为在Monroe当地有很多爵士乐音乐家，他们的存在会促进C-Note这个爵士乐俱乐部的盈利。但实际上这些音乐家可能不会更倾向于在当地的俱乐部演出。因此，原文的这个关于音乐家和俱乐部盈利的因果假设是没有说服力的。
Finally, the nationwide study showing that the average jazz fan spends $1,000 each year on jazz entertainment would lend support to the applicant's claim only if it could be determined that a portion of this budget would certainly be allocated for the use of enjoyment in a new club.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第三个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。
【本段功能】
作为正文第四段，本段攻击原文所犯的第四个重要逻辑错误——样本类错误。原文假设国家性质的调查能够等同于当地的情况。但实际上当地的个体情况可能并非如此，因此原文的这个观点是没有说服力的。
In conclusion, the loan applicant's argument is not persuasive. To bolster it he must provide clearer evidence that Monroe residents would patronize the C-Note on a regular basis. Such evidence might include the following: statistics showing that a significant number of Monroe residents attend the jazz festival each year, a survey showing that fans of Monroe's jazz radio program would go out to hear live jazz if they had the chance, and assurances from well-known local jazz musicians that they would play at the C-Note if given the opportunity.
【本段结构】
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Conclusion是站不住脚的，接下来给出可以增强原文说服力的合理的Suggestion，包括原文作者需要进一步提供的证据和细节信息等。
【本段功能】
本段作为结尾段，具体功能即为总结归纳+提出建议。段落首先再次重申强调原文作者的论证不合理，接下来给出合理的建议，原文作者必须考虑到当地居民是否会喜欢这样的爵士乐俱乐部，以及当地爵士乐音乐家们是否会去这个俱乐部去演奏。此外，结尾段总结提出的建议与正文各段中依次攻击的错误遥相呼应，即分别对应了因果类错误，类比类错误和样本类错误，使全篇文章显得浑然一体。
【满分要素剖析】
【语言表达】
本文的语言使用规范、清晰，词汇也用得准确地道，并使用多变的句式让考官读起来津津有味，这些都是
1) This loan applicant claims that…(标志性的Argument开头段引出原文结论的语言表达形式。)To support this claim the applicant points out that… He also cites various other evidences that… Careful examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the applicant's claim. (标志性的指出文章错误的语言表达。整体开头段是标准的C—A—F的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
2) First of all, if… it seems that Monroe should already have… The fact that…reveals a point of uncertainty, which should be reserved for further study. Since the applicant has not adequately responded to this concern, his claim that the proposed club would be profitable is untenable.(标志性的因果关系颠倒导致因果类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
3) Finally, the nationwide study showing that… would lend support to the applicant's claim only if…(标志性的由整体类推个体的类比类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
4) In conclusion, the loan applicant's argument is not persuasive. To bolster it he must provide clearer evidence that… Such evidence might include the following…(标志性的Argument结尾段Suggestion体系的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
【逻辑结构】
本文的写作体现出了非常严谨的开头段—正文段1、2、3、4—结尾段的逻辑体系：
(开头段)This loan applicant claims that…
(正文段1)First of all, if…
(正文段2)Secondly, the popularity of… appears to lend support to the applicant's claim. However, it is entirely possible that…
(正文段3)Thirdly, while… lend little significant support to the applicant's claim…
(正文段4)Finally, the nationwide study…
(结尾段)In sum, the evidence accomplishes little toward supporting the manager's argument for…
特别注意的是，本文的第二和第三段段攻击的是因果类错误，而第四段和第五段攻击的都是原文当中的类比类逻辑错误。这样的写法，能够清晰的体现这篇文章对于逻辑错误的攻击顺序是非常清晰的：即先攻击第一类的因果类错误，接着攻击第二大类的样本类错误，并对原文中的样本类错误进行了拆分，即分别分析由整体类推个体的类比类错误和参照其它案例的类比类错误。
