1.1 Hasty Generalization

The most conspicuous reasoning error in this argument is the author’s underlying/gratuitous assumption that A is representative of B, in general. However, it is not necessary the case. There may be many dissimilarities between A and B. For example, perhaps … So unless it can be shown that what is true of A will be likewise true of most other…, the conclusion that…is fairly unwarranted/highly suspect/entirely unfounded.

1.2 Misapplied Generalization

The author’s conclusion/prediction relies on the gratuitous assumption that 大范围 applies specifically to 小范围. There is, however, no guarantee that this is the case, nor does the author provide any evidence to substantiate this assumption. Just as likely, 小范围 ….( is just in the opposite direction). In that case, the author’s conclusion/recommendation might amount to especially poor advice.

1.3 False Analogy

The argument relies on what might be a “false analogy” between A and B. In order for B to serve as the model for A, the author must first assume that all relevant circumstances involving these two…are essentially the same. However, this assumption is not warranted. For example, …all affects A but are virtually absent in B. All these problems might present surmountable obstacles for …in the future.

1.4 All things are equal

The argument unfairly infers that….would remain unchanged over/since…(unfairly infers from…in the past that ...this year would must be …). However, in the absence of evidence to support this inference, it is just as likely that …, or that… (Admittedly, had ten years elapsed the argument would be even weaker. Yet two years is sufficient time to see great changes in… For example, perhaps…) Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the author’s conclusion that…

2.1 Casual Oversimplification

No evidence has been offered to support the assumption that

A is all that required for B/the reason…was…. While A is an important contributing factor to B, it is hardly the only one. Many other reasons---…---could just as likely account for B. The author’s failure to consider and eliminate other possible explanations for B renders the conclusion highly suspect.

2.2/2.3 post hoc, ergo propter hoc/cum hoc, ergo propter hoc

This argument commits a fallacy of “post hoc, ergo propter hoc/cum hoc, ergo propter hoc”. The mere fact that A preceded/coincided with B is insufficient to establish a casual relationship between these two events. Many other reasons---…---could just as likely account for A. The author’s failure to consider and eliminate other possible explanations for B renders the conclusion highly suspect.

2.4 Correlation to Causation

The argument relies on an unproven cause-and-effect relationship between A and B. In fact, many other reasons---…----could just as likely account for B. If it turns out that A has nothing to do with B, then simply do something will not solve the problem.

3.1 False Dilemma

The author assumes that A and B are mutually exclusive alternatives. However, the author provides no reason for imposing an either/or choice. Adjusting both A and B might produce better results. Moreover, if the author is wrong in the assumption that A and B are the only possible causes of the problem, then the most effective solution might include…

The author assumes that A and B are mutually exclusive alternatives. Based on the fact that (not chose A), the author unfairly concludes that (people must have chosen B). However, the author overlooks the possibility that (people don’t choose either of them).

3.2 Appeal to ignorance

The argument relies on/rests on/turns on the assumption that the 99 percent of Avia passengers who did not complain were happy with the airline’s baggage-handling procedures. However, the author provides no evidence to support this assumption. The fact that on the average, 9 out of 1000 passengers took the time and effort to formally complain indicates nothing about the experience or attitudes of the remaining 991. It is possible that many passengers were displeased but too busy to formally complain, while others had no opinions at all. Lacking more complete information about passengers’ attitudes, we cannot simply assume that the great majority of passengers who did not complain were happy.

3.3 One-sidedness

Only Advantages

The argument relies on an oversimplified reasoning that ignores the demerits brought by… The author assumes that 优点 without sacrificing any other… In fact, …may have to 缺点1， 缺点2，all to offset the benefits associated with 优点. It may turn out that the …disadvantages of…outweigh the advantages. Lacking a detailed analysis of the situation, the author’s …cannot be taken seriously.

Only Disadvantages

The argument relies on an oversimplified reasoning that ignores the benefits brought by… For example,…, all to compensate the costs associated with… It may turn out that the …advantages of…outweigh the disadvantages. Lacking a detailed analysis of the situation, the author’s …cannot be taken seriously.

4.1 Vested Interest

We have strong reasons to question the creditability and neutrality of the survey in which the conductor has vested interest and therefore is inclined to manipulate the figures/truth to his own advantage.

We have strong reasons to question the creditability and neutrality of the remarks made by XXX, who has vested interest and therefore is inclined to take the position to his own advantage.

4.2 Specious Statistics

The statistics are intended to support the main claim that…But these statistics are vague and oversimplified, thus may distort the state’s overall economic picture. For example,… Moreover,… Finally,…

1.
State workers’ pay raises may have been minuscule and may not have kept up with cost of living or with pay for state workers in other states. Wage+

2.
The 5000 new jobs may have been too few to bring state unemployment rates down significantly; at the same time, many jobs may have been lost. New jobs+

3.
The poll indicates that six new corporations located in the state, but fails to indicate if any left. New corporations+ (此处用北美范文举例，3个非常典型的例子)

4.3 Statistical Evidence

The survey methodology might be problematic in two respects.

Insufficient sample

…is insufficient to gauge …Lacking information about…, it is impossible to draw any reliable conclusion about…

Respondent

l
根据回复答卷的人分析

Another problem with the argument is that the respondents’ views are not necessarily representative of the views of…in general. For example, because the survey has to do with…, it makes sense that only…would respond to it, thereby distorting the overall picture of..Without knowing how the survey was conducted, it is impossible to assess the validity of the survey.

Another problem with the argument is that we are not informed whether the responses were anonymous, or even confidential. If they were not, the respondents might have provided responses that they believed …would approve of, regardless of whether the responses were truthful.

l
只有结果的百分比，没有受访人数

Another problem with the argument involves the validity of the survey. The author provides no evidence that the number of respondents is statistically significant or that the respondents were representative of …in general. Lacking information about the randomness and size of the survey’s sample, it is impossible to assess the validity of the results.

Information too vague

The information provided in this program is too vague to be informative. Lacking information about who conducted this survey, who responded, or when, where and how the survey was conducted, it is impossible to assess the validity of the results. For example, if 200 persons are surveyed but only 2 responded, the conclusion that … would be highly suspect. Until these questions are answered, the results from this survey are worthless as evidence for the conclusion.

5.1 Cost-and-benefit Analysis

First, the author assumes that… This assumption fails to take into account cost increases and inefficiency that could result from…. For instance, company representatives would have to travel to do business in areas formerly served by a field office, creating travel costs and loss of critical time. In short, this assumption must be supported with a thorough cost-benefit analysis of centralization versus other possible cost-cutting and/or profit-enhancing strategies.