P.S.:

一. 一些比较小的但在某些题目中可能遇到的逻辑错误攻击模板

1. 差异概念: The arguer unfairly equates A with B. However, there is no evidence in the argument which can show that A is equal to B. ( 上这个老师的课多不代表她的教学质量非常高)

2. 定义攻击: A threshold problem involves the definition of A. The arguer does not provide an accutate and exact definition of A. (在大城市拥有一套住房的作家是否不算小城镇作家)

3. 忽略时间变化: The author’s inference that … rests on the poor assumption that during the … (the interim) all conditions upon which their effectiveness depend have remained unchanged./ It is assumed without justification that background conditions have remained the same at different times (conditions)

 (篮子那道题)

4. 没有考虑收益和成本: A(地/公司)will not possibly earn a substantial profit by … (措施) for the reason that the author provides no information about the costs involved in … It is entirely possible that the cost of …is prohibitively high. If so, then the costs of … might prevent A from earning a profit. In short, without more information about supply, demand, and production costs, without weighing revenue against expenses the author’s notion is premature at best.

5. 非必要（表达作者没有考虑某些情况/途径的句式）

The author’s recommendation is based on the assumption that no alternative means of doing sth are available or better than the method mentioned above. However, there may be lots of other ways that may be even better than this method.  Without weighing the proposal against alternatives, the article’s claim that … is the “best ” means of achieving … is wholly unconvincing.

6. 必要而非充分条件(还需其他条件同时作用才能保证结果的发生)

7. 由过去推将来:

The argument does not indicate how much time passed between the two studies. During a sufficiently long interim period the demographic makeup of Leeville might have changed, or the reading habits of the first study’s respondents might have changed. In other words, the longer the time between studies the less reliable the conclusion that respondents in the first study misrepresented their reading habits.(阅读习惯那题)

二. 上下段衔接

1. 调查问题后接: Even assuming that the result of study mentioned above is statistically reliable…