GRE课堂补充材料(原字体).doc

1. 总述错误Merely based on the unsound reasoning, the author hastily makes the fallacious and absurd conclusion(), The deduction results from the following major reasons(), the author makes such egregious flaws as cause and effect, false analogy, insufficient investigation and analyses. 2. 提出因果错误The author commits the “cause and effect” fallacy. Its arbitrary for the author to draw the conclusion that (原因) will inevitably result in (结果). Nevertheless, other relevant reasons might have caused the effect as well. For example (给出其他原因). Moreover, its highly possible that the aforementioned reason has nothing to do with the alleged result.3. 提出数据调查错误（包括部分整体）:3.1)数量不充分In addition, there is a severe weakness in the statistical investigation. The amount of the sample is not ample enough to support the analyses. 数字 can hardly represent the entire 情况 3.2)数据不确切Whats more, the vaguely usage of “many, a large amount” is too subjective to insinuate a large proportion of the sample. Its highly possible that they investigated 6000, however the entire is around 6 million. The general analysis of the insufficient sample is not enough to adumbrate the local characteristics. It might be effective that the scenario in this local phenomenon is drastically different.3.3 调查如何进行: 3.3.1)选项问题On the other hand, its imperative that we should pay attention to the carriage of the investigation -whether the questionnaire represents the investigators subjective propensity. For instance, he might have only put one or two choices in favor of his judgment leaving little space for the objective selections. Maybe the choice is just whether your sleeping time exceeds 6 hours. For the concerns of personal interest, he twisted/obscured the truth. 3.3.2) 是否匿名问题Besides, it is momentous that the proceeding should be conducted in an unbiased format. For example, provided that the investigation is not anonymous, the credibility of the results must be highly dubious. 4. 提出错误类比 The author hastily makes the conclusion by falsely making the irrational analogy between., ignoring the gaps of various situations between the two including the laws and regulations, citizens consciousness, technology and its application, etc.5. 充分必要条件It is assumed that, in the reasoning, A will result in B. However, after profound consideration, only under the condition that when A is associated with B C D, the result will likely take place. More than that, its severely doubtful that A is not even the necessary condition for the consequence of B. 例子6. 一成不变错误It is taken for granted that A remained unchanged over the () years. However, due to the (geographic, economic, cultural, technological alteration), the scenario could be severely modified. Ten years ago, the scenarios were (), while it could have changed to ().7. 两种选择It is illogical that the author commits the limited alternative fallacy. Other than the aforementioned and restricted alternatives, its conceivable that () will ()8. 常识错误Its egregious that in terms of a required logical reasoning, the author, based on the deduction merely of common sense. It could have been that ()9. 结尾To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should provide more information concerning to better evaluate the argument, we need more concrete evidence that otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable.表示错误的形容词 fallacious mistaken misleading erroneous deceptive false表示逻辑错误的形容词 irrational illogical unreasonable ridiculous absurd senseless groundless unsound nonsensical表示逻辑正确的形容词rational sensible logical realistic judicious表示有说服力的形容词cogent convincing compelling persuasive logical rational credible true-to-life flawless表示武断的形容词assertive self-assured indiscriminate arbitrary dogmatic错误的名词mistake flaw inaccuracy imprecision inexactness wrongness erroneousness incorrectness impreciseness inexactitude表示导致result in； cause； bring about表示由于。导致arise from；arise out of；be caused by；stem from；come from错误类型英文表达cause and effect；analogy；statistical investigation；sufficient and necessary condition；part and whole；staying unchanged；restricted alternatives；Common senseMerely based on the unsound reasoning, the author hastily makes the fallacious and absurd conclusion that to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Quiot and thereby increase productivity, we should shorten each of our three work shifts by one hour. The author makes such egregious flaws as cause and effect, false analogy, insufficient investigation and analyses.It is said in the statement that during the past year, Quiot Manufacturing had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than the other. The author hastily makes the conclusion by falsely making the irrational analogy between Quiot Manufacturing and Panoply Industries plant, ignoring the gaps of various situations between the two including the laws and regulations, employees consciousness, technology and its nature of production, etc. It is possible that Panoply Industries plant carries on such high-tech intensive productions as software programming or architectural designing where on-the job accidents may not likely take place while Quiot Manufacturing takes labor intensive assignments more dangerous than in Panoply Industries plant. It is undeniable that, therefore, the accidents possibilities are much higher in Quiot CompanyIn addition, there is a severe weakness in the statistical investigation. The amount of the sample is not ample enough to support the analyses. 30 percent in the past year can hardly represent the entire situation over many years. It might have been a different situation for a long time severely opposed to the occurrence last year. For example, the truth might prove that Quiot Manufacturing had much less on-the-job accidents than at Panoply Industries plant with only one exception mentioned in the report. Whats more, the vaguely usage of “many on-the-job accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation” is too subjective to insinuate a large proportion of the sample. Its highly possible that they investigated, say, 60 cases, however the entire number of accidents is around 6000. The general analysis of the insufficient sample is not enough to adumbrate the local characteristics. It might be effective that the scenario in this local phenomenon is drastically different.Even though it may prove true that the two scenarios can by analyzed and the statistics are representative, yet the author commits the “cause and effect” fallacy. Its arbitrary for the author to draw the conclusion that more shifts will inevitably result in more sleep for employees. Nevertheless, it might have caused other effects as well. For example employees might, for instance, go shopping instead of having a rest. Moreover, its highly possible that the aforementioned reason has nothing to do with the alleged result. Moreover, it is assumed that, in the reasoning, less workload will result in much safer production. However, after profound consideration, only under the condition that when sufficient sleeping condition is associated with company regulation, employees proficiency, etc., the result will likely take place. More than that, its severely doubtful that the lack of rest is not even the necessary condition for the consequence of safer condition. Maybe, the employees dont feel fatigue even if they work one hour longer than in Panoply industries.To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should provide concrete evidence of facts, investigation of more employees and solid proof that the accidents are associated with their fatigue, otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable. 579 words类比、数据、一成不变、常识、因果、充要、部分整体20. The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station.Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this time period, most of the complaints received from viewers were concerned with our stations coverage of weather and local news. In addition, local businesses that used to advertise during our late-night news program have just canceled their advertising contracts with us. Therefore, in order to attract more viewers to the program and to avoid losing any further advertising revenues, we should restore the time devoted to weather and local news to its former level.Merely based on the senseless reasoning, the author hastily makes the erroneous and ridiculous conclusion that restoring the time devoted to weather and local news to its former level will attract more viewers to the program and avoid losing any further advertising revenues. The author makes such egregious flaws as cause and effect, statistic investigation, staying uncharged, insufficient investigation and analyses.First of all, there is a severe weakness in the statistical investigation. The usage of “most” is too vague to demonstrate the exact proportion of complaints concerning the coverage of the local news and weather, since the total population of the audience is unknown. If there are 10000 people watching the program usually, while only ten made complaints, ten of which showed dissatisfaction to the coverage of the program. Then, the general analysis of the insufficient sample is not enough to adumbrate the local characteristics. On the contrary, the actual scenario can be quite different.In addition, it is taken for granted that the audiences favor remained unchanged over the past years. Even if the audiences are really not content with the coverage of the program, there is little evidence to show they are still fond of the weather and local news. Due to the cultural alteration, the scenario could be severely modified. Ten years ago, people focused more on the local news and weather report, but nowadays they might just want to watch more TV plays, like Prison Break and Gossip Girl, which may be the real cause they express their dissatisfaction to the program now.Even though it may prove true that the two scenarios can by analyzed and the statistics are representative, yet the author commits the “cause and effect” fallacy. Its arbitrary for the author to draw the conclusion that restoring the time devoted to weather and local news to its former level can lead to the consequence better off. For instance, if they cannot assure the quality of program but just make the devoted time as much as before, it might have little chance for the audience to come back to this program, as well as the advertising revenues. Besides, it is highly possible that the competitors of the TV, such as the radio and internet, make more attractive and useful programs and messages to the audience. Then the strategy of restoring the program arrangement might still be futile.To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should provide more concrete evidence of facts, figures and solid proof that the restoring of the program is related to the rise of the focus of the audience and advertising, otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable. (468 words)142. Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident. The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is the intent of these products to either prevents accidents from occurring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur. However, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other (and potentially more significant) causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear. First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear - preventative gear (such as light reflecting material) and protective gear (such as helmets). Preventative gear is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the other is a responsible and caring individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention. Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by another, the skater or some force of nature. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial. The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not. If is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution and responsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself. Also, the statistic above is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are relatively dangerous places to skate in the first place. People who are generally more safety conscious (and therefore more likely to wear gear) may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards. The statistic also goes not differentiate between severity of injuries. The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries. This is certainly not the case. Also, given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and weekends (when doctors offices are closed), skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment. Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality (and presumably more expensive) gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear. For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same preventative benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating. Before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by individual pieces of gear would be helpful. The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and potentially saves lives. Before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be made in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the benefits is needed. After all, a false confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all. Issue 内容分析流程-关注原因型4. Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could. 第一段As is described in the issue, the author assumes that (scandals focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could) will result in the reality that (scandals are useful). Its essentially imperative that the (reason and result) should be thoroughly analyzed before we reach the conclusion. There might be several explanations of the assumption(s) of the claimed reason. To begin with, the reason in the statement might not hold true in some scenarios. In addition, with the proviso that the reason takes place in certain situations, it will bring about consequences irrelevant to the claimed result. Whats more, under the condition that the reason proves part of the causes to the claimed result, it is far from being sufficient to reach the result unquestionably. Unless the core concept of the cause is systematically examined, the conclusion drawn out of which will prove inadequate and ineffective. In my point of view, (I hold the opinion of general disagreement towards the statement). My opinion will be greatly strengthened by the following discussion.第二段Admittedly, it is shrewd to acknowledge the truth that this claim, although disadvantaged by some discernable shortcomings, in possession of some values principally in some distinct cases in which the embedded reasoning comply with our common sense and understanding as human beings, hence, is partially indisputable. After all, One could effortlessly imagine the scenario, in which （the scandals of Prime Minister Berlusconi and Prime Minister Gordon Brown will, to some extent, arouse our attention to the misbehavior of corruption）Accordingly, I tend to concede that when it comes to some certain circumstances it is parti