Arg-44
The following appeared in a newsletter distributed at a recent political rally:
"Over the past year, the Consolidated Copper Company (CCC) has purchased over one million square miles of land in the tropical nation of West Fredonia. Mining copper on this land will inevitably result in pollution and environmental disaster, since West Fredonia is home to several endangered animal species. But such disaster can be prevented if consumers simply refuse to purchase products that are made with CCC's copper until the company abandons its mining plans."
The author of this excerpt concludes that if consumers refuse to buy products made with Consolidated Copper Company (CCC) copper the company will abandon its mining plans in the nation of West Fredonia. No other evidence or assumptions are presented in this argument but let us examine it further.
【此段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即：C- F的开头结构，首句概括原文的C(Conclusion)。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：West Fredonia的居民可以通过抵制CCC商品来使其放弃在当地的采矿业务。接下来，作者提出，原文并没有其他的Evidence。最后点出原文需要further examine，引出后面的分析。
Essentially, the author provides no evidence in this argument. For example, there is no proof indicating that the West Fredonia land that CCC has acquired the land for the purpose of mining or investing. In consideration of the amount of total land purchased, it is not clear if the land is relatively significant. There is no clear evidence indicating that the land is inhabited by endangered animal species. Barring the presentation of evidence, the author of the excerpt above doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
【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(无原因)。作者认为原问没有提供支撑论点的Evidence，例如CCC会在这里mining和investing的证据，purchased land是否relatively significant以及这片土地endangered animal的情况。缺乏论据是的文章的结论站不住脚。
For the sake of the argument, let’s assume CCC does plan mining activities in West Fredonia and that these activities will result in a “disaster.” Regarding a definition of terms, the author fails to illustrate the meaning of the work. For example, disaster, to some, could mean any disruption to the natural habit whereas other people characterize disaster as the complete and total ruin of an area. Without a clear definition, the argument itself is too vague to work with.
【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：因果错误(论据模糊)。作者认为，原文并没有说明CCC的行为会在该地区造成怎样的后果，例如disaster, disruption to habit或者total ruin of the area。作者提出，在缺乏详细论据的前提下结论不可靠。
Thirdly, the author's position that environmental disaster is "inevitable" absent the prescribed precludes the possibility that other measures can be taken to prevent CCC from carrying out its plans, or to offset any harm that CCC causes should it carry out its plans. However, the author fails to provide assurances that no other means of preventing the predicted disaster are available. Lacking such evidence the author cannot reasonably conclude that the proposed is the best way to move forward on the matter.
【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：语气过于绝对，缺乏证据。作者认为原文关于“CCC造成环境破坏是inevitable的”这一说法忽略的其他措施的可行性，太过绝对。进一步，作者提出原文对inevitable的缺乏具体说明，因此这一说法是不准确的。
Let’s assume that the prescribed is a requisite to the prevention of environmental disaster (to whatever extent) in West Fredonia, the author assumes too hastily that the will suffice for these purposes. Perhaps additional measures would be required as well. For instance, perhaps consumers would also need to other companies that subsidize CCC in order to have any effect on the company’s plans. In short, without any evidence that the recommended course of action will be enough to prevent the predicted problems, the author's conclusion remains dubious at best.
【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：错误因果(充分条件)。作者认为，，但比一定是充分条件。进一步，作者提出了其他必须采取的措施来进一步反驳原文的结论，例如抵制other company对CCC的赞助。
In sum, to put it frankly, the above newsletter distributed at the political rally is not worth the paper upon which it was printed. That is to say that the message is nonsense and should be all but dismissed. The core of the matter: CCC’s mining plans, are the only significant area of the argument that could be considered for further exploration. In order to salvage any claim at all, an actual argument would have to be constructed wherein evidence could illuminate the existence of a mining plan, map out the harm such a plan may cause to the environment, and present a cost-benefit analysis of such a plan before suggesting CCC go ahead or stop with the plan.
【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：“newletter上的political rally”是没有说服力的。接下来作者给出使原文更有说服力几条合理化建议：先要说明CCC的mining plan存在性已经可能造成的后果，然后说明进行cost-benefit anaysis。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。
满分因素剖析：
一、语言表达
1. For the sake of the argument, let’s assume ... . (标志性的
2. In sum, to put it frankly, the above newsletter distributed at the political rally is not worth the paper upon which it was printed.(标志性的GRE argument结尾段开头，重申原文中错误的conclusion) That is to say that the message is nonsense and should be all but dismissed. The core of the matter: ... In order to salvage any claim at all, an actual argument ... , and present a cost-benefit analysis ... .
(针对论证段提出的逻辑错误，给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。
正文段部分的第二段和第四段的开头句很出彩
Let’s assume that the prescribed is a requisite to the prevention of environmental disaster (to whatever extent) in West Fredonia, the author assumes too hastily that the will suffice for these purposes.
For the sake of the argument, let’s assume CCC does plan mining activities in West Fredonia and that these activities will result in a “disaster.”
作者在这一段用到了让步的写法，即先假设前一个论断是正确的，在这一基础上提出文章的其他错误。这样使得论证段与论证段之间内容关联性更加紧密。
