zhouqi871115:--------------------------------------------------------------

主要是为了练练驳斥的句型，中间的观点是自己想过以后结合范文写的- -好像和范文区别不大

结尾段没写，中间段写了2中不同的形式，为红色字体~~

The following appeared as part of a promotional campaign to sell advertising space in the Daily Gazette to grocery stores in the Marston area.

“Advertising the reduced price of selected grocery items in the Daily Gazette will help you increase your sales. Consider the results of a study conducted last month. Thirty sale items from a store in downtown Marston were advertised in the Gazette for four days. Each time one or more of the 30 items was purchased, clerks asked whether the shopper had read the ad. Two-thirds of the 200 shoppers asked answered in the affirmative. Furthermore, more than half the customers who answered in the affirmative spent over $100 at the store.”-----------------------

In this argument the author concludes that advertising on sale products in the Daily Gazette will result in increased sales. The conclusion is based on an informal poll conducted by sale clerks when customers purchased advertised items. Customers will be asked whether read the advertisement in the newspaper when purchased one or more items that advertised in the newspaper and two-thirds of the 200 customers give a positive answer. In addition, of those who reported reading the ad, more than half spent over $100 at the store. This argument is unconvincing in several aspects.

In the first place, the evidence the author provides is insufficient to support the conclusion drawn from it. One example is rarely sufficient to establish a general conclusion. Unless it can be shown that the store in downtown of the Marston is representative of all stores who advertised in the newspaper for their on sale products, the conclusion that all stores who advertised on sale products in the newspaper will increase sales is completely unwarranted. For example, if the four days during which the poll was conducted preceded Thanksgiving and the store mentioned in the argument is a store selling Thanksgiving presents. Then the results of the poll would be extremely bias and unreliable.

In the second place, the author assumes that the poll indicates that the advertising in the newspapers will cause a general increase in sales. But the poll does not even address the issue of increased overall sales; it informs that, of the people who purchased the products, more had read the ad than not. The only evidence offered to support this conclusion is the fact that the overall sales on days the ad ran is somewhat larger than the overall sales on days the ad not ran. ( overall sales otherwise similar days when the ad did not run)

To begin with, the author assumes that the poll indicates that the advertising in the newspapers will cause a general increase in sales. But the poll does not even address the issue of increased overall sales; it informs that, of the people who purchased the products, more had read the ad than not. The only evidence offered to support this conclusion is the fact that the overall sales on days the ad ran is somewhat larger than the overall sales on days the ad not ran.

Even if it is granted that the store’s overall sales on days the ad ran is general increase, another assumption must be made before we can conclude that the all of stores advertised in the newspapers will result in increased sales. We must also assume that what is true of the store mentioned in the argument will likewise be true of most other stores in the downtown Marston. But there are all kinds of differences between these stores. For example, if the four days during which the poll was conducted preceded Thanksgiving and the store mentioned in the argument is a store selling Thanksgiving presents. Then the results of the poll would be extremely bias and unreliable.

James: -------------------------------------------------------------

首先说 写的不错 先说内容吧

原文是这样的

在Daily Gazette上对选定生活用品作降价广告将会帮助你提升你的销售额。参考上个月的一份研究结果，Marston城区某个商店的30个促销产品在G上做了4天的广告，而每当这30个产品中一个或者多个被购买时，店员都询问顾客是否有读过广告，而200个顾客中的2/3都回答是读过的。另外那些回答读过广告的顾客中超过一半都在店内消费了100$以上。

我们先把文章逻辑结构整理一下：

结论：在DG上对on sale product 广告会增加销受额。

支持1：某研究结果，某店某次DG上的促销产品广告后的调查发现，2/3的该产品买家都看过广告

支持2：看过广告的买家超过一半在该店消费100$以上。

那么我们如果把原文的逻辑链条补全，实际上是这样的，首先，作者假设了那个做广告的店销售额增加了，但是却没有任何地方表明。其次，作者尝试用 支持1 和 支持2 来说明：做广告是销售额增加的原因，而这个子结论文章也并没有给出，所以是作者的一个假设；然后又尝试用这个假设，或者说这个一个店的结论推广到所有的店得到文章结论：在DG上对on sale product 广告会增加销受额。所以我们在进行驳斥的时候也应该按照这样的一个顺序逐次进行，就是你的第二个顺序，这会让你的文章更具有逻辑性和可读性。

具体驳斥可以是这样的：

首先，作者假设了该店的销售额在做广告期间增加了，但是他没有给出任何的证据，原文中没有任何地方对广告期间的销售额进行描述。尽管作者指出看过广告的买家超过一半都消费了100$以上，但是这一证据根本不足以表明销售额有所增加。

其次，即便我们接受销售额增加这个荒唐的结论，但作者仍然没有建立起做广告和销售额增加之间的因果关系。支持1并不能建立起看广告和购买产品之间的因果关系，因为很可能没有购买产品的买家超过2/3都看了广告。支持2也无法支持看过广告的顾客消费更多，因为没有比较，我们并不知道100$是个什么概念。所以即便销售额真的增加了，也未必然就是广告造成的

再次，即便我们接受广告的确让这家店的销售额增加了，但是我们仍然缺乏证据去支持这种增加是具有普适性的。M那么多店，仅仅一家店的案例不一定能够用到别家。

zhouqi871115: -------------------------------------------------------------

首先，同样没有结尾段，但是木有抄范文，全是自己写的

我想出来的逻辑错误有以下几点

1，错误的类比，将人的名字和商品的销售潜力相比

2，assumption  第二次访问比第一次访问回答出的人数多是因为广告

3，assumption 1+2=知名度的上升可以增加销售额...这个不太确定

4，第一次的survey给出了5%of 15000人，第二次只给出了百分数，总人数不确定，并且如果同样是15000人，那么是否可能和第一次的重复导致前测后测效应

如上所述，因为逻辑错误点各有侧重点，如果把上面这些都写完我估计都要超500字了，我觉得以我的能力在30分钟内搞不定，如何选择？是否可以有选择的抛弃？

请指正

The following is from a campaign by Big Boards, Inc., to convince companies in River City that their sales will increase if they use Big Boards billboards for advertising their locally manufactured products.

“The potential of Big Boards to increase sales of your products can be seen from an experiment we conducted last year. We increased public awareness of the name of the current national women’s marathon champion by publishing her picture and her name on billboards in River City for a period of three months. Before this time, although the champion had just won her title and was receiving extensive national publicity, only five percent of 15,000 randomly surveyed residents of River City could correctly name the champion when shown her picture; after the three-month advertising experiment, 35 percent of respondents from a second survey could supply her name.”-------------------

In this argument the author recommend that advertising products by use of Big Boards billboards will result in the increased sales. This recommendation is based on an informal poll by Big Boards Company. When shown the picture and asked the name of the marathon champion, 35 percent of the randomly surveyed residents gave an affirmative response, compared with 5 percent before advertising the marathon champion's name and picture on the billboards. The author’s line of reasoning is that the advertising products on the billboards will increase its public awareness, thereby increasing profits because of the increasing sales potential. This line of reasoning is problematic in two critical respects.

In the first place, the author assumes that the increasing affirmative responses were due to the advertisement on the Big Board billboards. However, the only evidence offered to support this conclusion is the fact that advertisement preceded the increased affirmative responses. But the mere fact that the advertisement before the increase occurred is insufficient grounds to conclude that it was responsible for the increase. Many other factors could bring about the same result. For example, a TV news or a prize-giving ceremony will help to increase the affirmative response.

In the second place, it is highly doubtful that the facts drawn from the marathon champion are applicable to the companies’ products. Differences between the individual and enterprise clearly outweigh the similarities, thus making the analogy highly suspect. For example, qualities, application and price all affect the product but are virtually absent in the public awareness of a marathon champion. Thus we cannot make the conclusion that the advertisement on the billboards will increase the public awareness of the products.

James: -------------------------------------------------------------

还是先说文章内容：

BB对于您产品销量增加的潜在作用可以从我们去年所知道的一个实验中看出来。我们通过在3个月内的在River City的户外广告牌中挂上最近国家女子马拉松冠军的名字和照片增加了她的公众认知度。在此之前，尽管冠军本人已经赢得了她的奖杯并且获得了巨大的公众认知，但是在River City的15,000名随机抽调的居民中只有5%能够在看到她的照片时正确的说出她的名字；在3个月的广告试验之后，第二次调查中的超过35%的回应者能够说出她的名字

文章的逻辑结构实际上也比较清楚

结论：BB能够通过广告增加产品销量

支持：对马拉松冠军的广告试验，广告前5%人认识她 广告后35%的人认识她

这里我们还是梳理一下文章的逻辑线条。

1）广告前5%认识，广告后35%认识（事实，或者叫论据）

2）广告增加了马拉松冠军的公众认知度

3）广告能增加销售产品的公众认知度

4）公众认知度能增加产品的销售量

原文的逻辑其实就是 1）=〉2）=〉3）=〉4）这么一个简单的直线逻辑。所以我们驳斥的时候也就是针对上面的三个箭头从前往后驳斥

对于1）=〉2），广告前后的确存在认识度的差别，但是这个差别未必是由广告本身造成的。The arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between the advertising and the difference of awereness. 这是一个典型的“after this, because of this”错误。具体驳斥不说了，有无数别的因素影响这个，最简单的，时间本身就能够早就认知度的提高，因为信息传播需要速度。你跟大学里面第一天没人认识你，3个月后每个同班同学都认识你，你也没做广告阿

对于2）=〉3），广告增加人物公众认知能否增加产品公众认知呢？不一定，这是一个典型的错误类比。公众人物和销售产品本身就不可比。这里可以先一个让步，即便我们接受广告的确增加了冠军的公众认知，但是作者也没有给出任何证据去支持广告对于产品有相同的效果。这一段的驳斥可以尽力列举两者的差别就可以了。产品是死的，人是活的，产品是批量生产的，人是Unique的。

最后对于3）=〉4），也是先让步，即便我们接受广告的确增加公众认知，并且对于人物和产品作用一样，即广告的确增加了产品的公众认知，但是我们仍然不能说它能增加产品销量。除非你能证明说公众认知度是影响产品销量的唯一因素，而且还是正相关的，否则我们都不信。你看看三鹿或者圣元，认知度够了吧，全国老百姓都知道，但是结果呢，没人买，所以认知度不是唯一因素。

回过头来说说你的问题，关于survey的有效性，这个实际上是在驳斥原文的论据。这点我自己是不推荐的，我们做驳斥，根本是要去驳斥论证关系。当没有论证关系驳斥了，才驳斥论据，因为论据驳斥总是很弱的，显得比较没品。

这个题目行文方面我的建议是，三大段逐次让步的把三个箭头砍掉，然后最后如果有时间，在最后一段加上一小句话。那就是如果我们要更好的评价这片文章，我们还需要考证survey的有效性。O了

Hope it helps

话说以后写作题目强烈要求150分起..这个码字太难了