Arg 109
The following appeared in a memorandum from the general manager of KNOW radio station:
"KNOW should shift its programming from rock-and-roll music to a continuous news format. There are a number of reasons why: the number of older people in our listening area has increased dramatically, while the total number of our listeners has recently declined, music stores in our area report decreased sales of recorded music and continuous news stations in neighboring cities have been very successful. Furthermore, a survey taken just before the recent election shows that locals are interested in becoming better informed about politics."
This memo recommends that KNOW radio station shift from rock-and-roll (R&R) music programming to all-news programming based on a number of reasons. As the manager indicates, the total number of KNOW listeners are decreasing in number while the number of older people in KNOW's listening area is increasing. The manager also points out that area sales of music recordings are in decline. Furthermore, the manager cites a recent survey that indicates local residents are interested in becoming better informed about politics. The manager also points out that a radio station in a similar situation shifted their programming and met with great success. While the recommendation seems to be well supported, there are too many unproven assumptions here.
【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：manager推荐KNOW电台把摇滚乐节目换成新闻节目。接下来分别列举了原文为了支持这个结论引用的四个证据：一是KNOW的总听众数量减少而老年听众数量增加，二是唱片在此地的销量下降，三是最近调查表明当地居民希望对新闻有更多了解，四是同样的转型在其他电台取得成功，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。
First, the manager assumes that the decline in the number of KNOW listeners is attributable to the station's current format. It is possible that decline is due to KNOW's specific mix of R&R music, or to transmission problems at the station. Without ruling out these and other possible reasons for the decline in total listener number, the manager should not offer a recommendation for change.
【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。作者认为原文把deline in number of readers的原因归结为station’s format，而作者认为还可能有其他现象导致听众数量下降。例如KNOW电台mix of R&R music(摇滚乐搭配)，以及transmission problems(信号问题)。在无法忽略他因前提下结论是不正确的。
Secondly, in his argument, the manager assumes that older people favor all-news programming—this is an unsubstantiated view. Perhaps as KNOW's regular audience ages, it will prefer a mix of R&R and news programming rather than one format or the other. In short, the mere fact that the number of older people in KNOW's listening area is increasing suggests nothing about KNOW's best programming strategy.
【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：因果类错误(缺乏证据)。作者人为原文中“老年听众喜欢收听新闻节目”的说法没有根据。作者提出了另外的可能性，常规听众可能希望听mix of R&R and news programming而不是单一节目。
Thirdly, a decrease in local music recording sales is scant evidence that KNOW should eschew music in favor of an all-news format. Although overall music sales are declining, perhaps sales of R&R recordings are actually increasing while sales of all other types of music recordings are decreasing. For that matter, perhaps people who buy music recordings are generally not the same people who listen to music on the radio. Either scenario, if true, would seriously undermine the manager's recommendation.
【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(缺乏证据)。作者认为唱片销量下降并不能说明电台应该把摇滚乐改成新闻。作者提出可能出现的相反情况，唱片销量总数下降而摇滚唱片销量上升，或者买唱片的人和听电台的人not the same people。
Fourth, it is not sound reasoning to conclude from one survey suggesting that local residents are becoming better informed about politics that they are becoming less interested in listening to R&R music. Neither is it sensible to conclude that they are interested in news at all. After all, news embraces many topics in addition to politics. Besides that fact, there is no reason why people interested in politics cannot also be interested in listening to R&R music. Moreover, a single survey taken just prior to an election is insufficient evidence that the trend in interest would continue.
【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：因果类错误。，对摇滚兴趣减少。而作者认为调查结果不能说明当地人对新闻节目感兴趣。作者提出三个原因：，二是没有说明对新闻感兴趣的人为什么不对摇滚感兴趣，最后指出一个大选前的survey不能说明interest would continue。
Finally, it is unwarranted to infer from the success of all-news stations in nearby areas that KNOW will also succeed by following the same format. Those stations might owe their success to their powerful transmitters, popular newscasters, or other factors. Besides, the very success of these stations suggests that the area's radio listeners might favor those well-established news providers over a fledgling like KNOW would be after the transition.
【此段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第五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】
本段作为正文第五段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：错误类比。原文中“其他all-news station的成功”不能推断KNOW采用相同的策略也会取得成功。首先，作者提出了那些all-news station成功的其他因素，例如：powerful transmitters, popular newscasters等原因。进一步，作者又提出当地人可能更喜欢well-established news provider而不是KNOW这种刚起步的菜鸟。
In sum, the manager's evidence accomplishes little toward supporting the argument. So, while a shift may be a good idea, the argument certainly requires substantial work. For example, the manager should provide better evidence, perhaps by way of a reliable survey, that people within KNOW's listening area are becoming more interested in news and less interested in R&R music—or any other kind of music. The manager must also demonstrate that an all-news format would be more popular than a mixed format of music and news, and that a significant number of people would prefer KNOW's all-news programming over that of other stations in the listening area.
【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manager的建议不合理，接下来给出合理的建议：一是要说明人们对news感兴趣而对音乐兴趣减少，二是要说明all-news format会比mixed format of music and news要更受欢迎。结尾段的两条建议非常规整的隐射前面的错误，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. First, the manager assumes that ... is attributable to ... It is possible that ... , or ... . Without ruling out these and other possible reasons ... , ... should not ... .
标志性的因果错误分析及攻击段落
2. Finally, it is unwarranted to infer ...will also succeed by ... . (开头句用infer，also，success这三个词汇，点出了错误类型为“错误类比”)Those stations might ... Besides, the very success of these stations suggests that ...(标志性的
3. In sum, the manager's evidence accomplishes little toward supporting the argument. So, while a shift may be a good idea, the argument certainly requires substantial work. For example, the manager should provide better evidence, perhaps ... The manager must also demonstrate that... , and that ... .
标志性的GRE argument结尾，首句重申原文的conclusion存在错误。之后给出两条合理化suggestion。遵循C-S的逻辑结构
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——正文段5——结尾段的七段论结构，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。
另外，本文的一个很大的特色是正文段有5段，这在一般GRE argument写作中是非常少见的。在这五段中，作者列举了原文中所有的逻辑错误，可谓是面面俱到。但我们发现，五个正文段所攻击的逻辑错误很多都是因果类错误，段落在攻击体系和语言上都有些重复，虽然涵盖了原文的每一个错误，但读上去难免使人产生审美疲劳。在实际写作中，大家不一定要把文章中所有的错误都找出来，最好找那些比较明显的错误，而且尽量找不同类型的错误，这样文章段落语言富于变化，文章也更有趣味。
