GRE寫作官方題庫高頻ARGUMENT題目滿分范文分享：distinguish butter from margarine

　　The following memorandum is from the business manager of Happy Pancake House restaurants:

　　"Recently, butter has been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. This change, however, has had little impact on our customers. In fact, only about 2 percent of customers have complained, indicating that an average of 98 people out of 100 are happy with the change. Furthermore, many servers have reported that a number of customers who ask for butter do not complain when they are given margarine instead. Clearly, either these customers do not distinguish butter from margarine or they use the term 'butter' to refer to either butter or margarine."

　　Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.

　　【滿分范文賞析】

　　The author argues that Happy Pancake House (HPH) customers are unable to distinguish between butter and margarine or they do not care that they are being served margarine instead of butter. To support the argument, the speaker points out that the HPH's southwestern restaurants, which now serve margarine instead of butter, only received a total of 2% consumer complaints. The author indicates that reports from servers show customers asking for butter have not complained when given margarine instead. This argument is unconvincing for several reasons.

　　【本段結構】

　　本文采用了標準的Argument開頭段結構，即C—A—F的開頭結構。本段首先概括原文的Conclusion，之后簡要提及原文為支持其結論所引用的一系列Assumption及細節(jié)，最后給出開頭段到正文段的過渡句，指出原文的Flaw，即這些Assumption無法讓原文的結論具有說服力。

　　【本段功能】

　　作為Argument開頭段，本段具體功能就在于發(fā)起攻擊并概括原文的結論，即HPH的顧客無法區(qū)分Butter和Margarine，或者他們根本就不關心他們得到的是Margarine而非Butter。本段接下來提到了原文中為支持之前的Conclusion所提供的證據，即僅僅2%的顧客對這一改變提出了抱怨，并且根據服務員的報告，當得到的是Margarine而非Butter的時候，顧客們并沒有抱怨。文章提及這些信息，為是在正文段中對這些Assumption即將進行的具體攻擊做鋪墊。

　　Firstly, the speaker does not indicate the length of time that these restaurants have been refusing margarine to customers. If the change is a very recent one, it is possible that insufficient data have been collected to draw any reliable conclusions. So, without the certainty of trustworthy data, conclusions should not be drawn.

　　【本段結構】

　　本段采用了標準的Argument正文段結構，即先是提及原文的第一個邏輯錯誤，之后分析該邏輯錯誤的原因，接下來，進一步分析這樣的錯誤為什么讓原文的Conclusion不成立。

　　【本段功能】

　　作為正文第一段，本段攻擊原文所犯的第一個重要邏輯錯誤——樣本類錯誤。如果這個餐廳采取的這個改變是最近才發(fā)生的，那么可能顧客們還能短時間內忍受，因此很少抱怨。但如果時間久了，抱怨的人可能逐漸增多。換句話說，在僅僅很短時間里采取的樣本并不充分的情況下，原文的關于顧客并沒有抱怨的結論是不合理的。

　　Thirdly, the speaker assumes that HPH customers unhappy with the change generally complain about it. Maybe instead of expressing displeasure, customers simply don’t return. Since we don’t know how many, if any people simply walked away from the pancake fiasco without so much as offering a word, one simply cannot rely on a low amount of complaints as a total indicator that there is no problem with the policy. Two additional problems involve the reports from "many" servers that "a number" of customers asking for butter do not complain when served margarine instead. These vague generalities are not helpful in the formulation of an argument.

　　【本段結構】

　　本段采用了標準的Argument正文段結構，即先是提及原文的第三個邏輯錯誤，之后分析該邏輯錯誤的原因，接下來，進一步分析這樣的錯誤為什么讓原文的Conclusion不成立。

　　【本段功能】

　　作為正文第三段，本段攻擊原文所犯的第三個重要邏輯錯誤——樣本類錯誤。原文提到只有2%的人會抱怨HPH的這個改變，這意味著剩下的98%的人不會抱怨。但事實上，很有可能是因為這些顧客只是不愿意說出來罷了。此外，服務員的關于顧客抱怨的Report也不是很有說服力。因此，原文并不能證明的確是很少顧客抱怨HPH的這個改變。

　　In sum, the speaker's argument requires further development. To better assess the situation before making a recommendation, an audience would need to know: (1) how long the change has been in effect in the Southwest, (2) what percentage of HPH servers and managers have received customer complaints about the change, and (3) the number of such complaints as a percentage of the total number of HPH customers who order meals calling for either butter or margarine. To strengthen the argument, the speaker must provide clear evidence that HPH customers in all other regions are likely to be happy with the change and continue to patronize HPH thereafter.

　　【本段結構】

　　本段采用了標準的Argument結尾段結構，即C—S的結尾結構。首先再次重申原文Conclusion是站不住腳的，接下來給出可以增強原文說服力的合理的Suggestion，包括原文作者需要進一步提供的證據和細節(jié)信息等。

　　【本段功能】

　　本段作為結尾段，具體功能即為總結歸納+提出建議。段落首先再次重申強調原文作者的論證不合理，接下來給出合理的建議：這個改變發(fā)生了多久，顧客抱怨的實際百分比是多少，以及在其它地區(qū)的顧客對于這種改變的態(tài)度是什么。只有在全面考慮這些問題后，原文才能更有說服力。此外不難發(fā)現，結尾段總結提出的建議與正文各段中依次攻擊的錯誤遙相呼應，即分別對應了樣本類錯誤和類比類錯誤，這使全篇文章顯得渾然一體。