看了这么多官方范文的开头，总结出Argument的开头的写法：
1. 首句开门见山指出文章逻辑错误。
可以先通过一个小小的让步，指出文章的论证有其道理(这里可以高度概括一下文章逻辑论证思路和方法by comparison … with…)relatively/appear to/seem to/well presented/after all(注意这里不要summery the argument,要immediately engage the argument!)，然后笔锋一转however/while指出文章逻辑是有问题的。
2. 简单概括文章的逻辑错误，用高度凝练的语言提示下文论证思路。
这里又分为好几种方法：
a. 用first/in addition/also等清晰地列出文章逻辑错误和下文反驳要点。
b. 指出施行题目中建议的后果。
c. 只提示下一段的论证，承接下一段(不推荐)。
d. 用列举他因的方式提示下文论证要点。
以官方范文为例
Argument test 1: Speed Limits in Forestville.
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
“Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region’s highways by ten miles per hour. Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent. But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period. Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region’s highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville’s speed limit to what it was before the increase.”
Models from Practice Book
6分：
The agrument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making a comparison of the region of Forestville, the town with the higher speed limit and therefore automobile accidents, with the region of Elmsford, an area of a lower speed limit and subsequently fewer accidents, the argument for reducing Forestville’s speed limits in order to decrease accidents seems logical.
However,
这篇开头一开始就直截了当指出这篇argument是not well reasoned,然后高度概括了题目中的要点和题目的观点，下文反驳的第一段就用however承接，逻辑连贯，是大家比较喜欢的argument开头。
Argument test 2: Scott Woods
The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.
“Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland.”
This letter to the editor begins by stating the reasons the residents of Morganton voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state. The letter states that the entire community could benefit from an undeveloped parkland. The residents of the town wanted to ensure that no shopping centers or houses would be built there. This, in turn, would provide everyone in the community with a valuable resource, a natural park.
The letter then continues by addressing the issue of building a school on the land. The author reasons that this would also benefit the entire community as a natural parkland since much of the land would be devoted to athletic fields. The author of the letter comes to the conclusion that building a school on the land would be the best thing for everyone in the community.
This letter is a one-sided argument about the best use of the land known as Scott Woods. The author may be a parent whose child would benefit from a new school, a teacher who thinks a school would boost the community, or just a resident of Morganton. Regardless of who the author is, there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore.
这篇文章的开头实在是太长了，个人不建议写这样的开头，前两段全部是对题目的改写，第三段还用了两行去猜这个argument作者的身份，毕竟我们只有30min去写一篇argument,我认为开头还是开门见山，简单明了地表明文章观点比较好，把重点放在后面的论证部分。
我们可以看到commentary对这种开头也并不看好!
COMMENTARY
This outstanding response begins somewhat hesitantly; the opening paragraphs summarize but do not immediately engage the argument. (注意，这句话的意思是，rater希望看到的是immediately engage the argument的文章，而不是summarize the argument!)However, the subsequent paragraphs target the central flaws in the argument and analyze them in almost microscopic detail.
Argument test 3: Smile Bright
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
A recent survey of dental patients showed that people who use Smile-Bright toothpaste are most likely to have capped teeth — artificial but natural-looking protective coverings placed by dentists on individual teeth. Those people who had begun using Smile-Bright toothpaste early in life were more likely to have capped teeth than were people who had begun using Smile-Bright later in life. In addition, those who reported brushing their teeth more than twice a day with Smile-Bright toothpaste were more likely to have caps on their teeth than were those who reported brushing with Smile-Bright less frequently. Therefore, people wishing to avoid having their teeth capped should not use Smile-Bright toothpaste.
The argument contains several facets that are questionable. First, the reliability and generalizability of the survey are open to quesiton. In addition, the argument assumes a correlation amounts to a causal relationship. The argument also fails to examine alternative explanations. I will discuss each of these facets in turn.
这篇开头非常清晰地直接指出了文章的三个逻辑错误，既高度概括了题目的逻辑错误点，又提示了下文的逻辑论证顺序和内容，使人一目了然，可以学习这种方式。
Argument test 4: Roller Skating
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after rollerskating 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, rollerskaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.
Benchmark 6
The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, (先来一个小让步)it is the intent of these products to either prevent accidents from occuring 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. (指出了施行题目中建议的后果)
这篇开头先高度概括
题目中的结论，然后以after all引出一个小让步，再用However指出如果实施这个建议会带来什么后果，高度概括这个conclusion存在的两个问题：忽略他因和人们的错误投资，为下文的论证做铺垫。
Argument test 5: University of Claria
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
The University of Claria is generally considered one of the best universities in the world because of its instructors’ reputation, which is based primarily on the extensive research and publishing record of certain faculty members. In addition, several faculty members are internationally renowned as leaders in their fields. For example, many of the faculty from the English department are regularly invited to teach at universities in other countries. Furthermore, two recent graduates of the physics department have gone on to become candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physics. And 75 percent of the students are able to find employment after graduating. Therefore, because of the reputation of its faculty, the University of Claria should be the obvious choice for anyone seeking a quality education.
SAMPLE-1 (score 6)
While the University of Claria appears to have an excellent reputation based on the accomplishments and reputations of its faculty, one would also wish to consider other issues before deciding upon this particular institution for undergraduate or graduate training.(开门见山对题目中的建议提出质疑，通过先让步再转折的方法，先高度概括题目大意，再指出自己的观点。)The Physics and English departments are internationally known, but these are only two of the areas in which one might study. Other departments are not listed; is this because no others are worth mentioning, or because no other departments bothered to turn in their accomplishments and kudos to the publicity office?(直接开始引出第一个TS)
这篇开头也是开门见山对题目中的建议进行质疑，并引出第一个反驳的分论点，下文紧接着这一段的末句展开论证，个人比较喜欢第一句，对第二句不是很有爱，最好能提示全文，不要只提示下一段吧。
Argument test 6: Silver Screen Movies
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Silver Screen Movie Production Company.
“According to a recent report from our marketing department, fewer people attended movies produced by Silver Screen during the past year than in any other year. And yet the percentage of generally favorable comments by movie reviewers about specific Silver Screen movies actually increased during this period. Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers; so the problem lies not with the quality of our movies but with the public’s lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Silver Screen should therefore spend more of its budget next year on reaching the public through advertising and less on producing new movies.”
SAMPLE-1 (score 6)
The argument presented above is relatively sound, however, the author fails to recognize all the elements necessary to evaluate his situation. The idea that more money be invested in advertising may be a helpful one, but perhaps not because people are unaware of the current reviews. To clarify, it may be necessary to advertise more in order to increase sales, however that could be due to many circumstances such as a decrease in the public’s overall attendance, an increase in the cost of movies, or a lack of trust in the opinions of the reviewers.
这篇范文感觉跟大部分人写的文章结构很相近，大家朝着这个方向努力可能相对容易些。开头还是先开门见山指出题目是有问题的，然后简单指出题目的问题出在作者忽略了其他可能的原因，然后再用简单的语言分别概括了三个他因。
暂无评论内容