开头段模板 The conclusion endorsed in this argument is that. Several reasons are offered in support of this argument. First of all’ what’s more’ of equal importance is that. At first glance, the author’s argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that the conclusion is based on some dubious assumptions and the reasoning is biased due to the inadequacy and partiality in the nature of evidence provided to justify the conclusion. A careful examination would review how groundless this conclusion is.
结尾段模板To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Accordingly, it is imprudent for the author to claim that. To make this argument logically acceptable, the author would have to show that. In addition, to solidify the conclusion, the author should provide concrete evidence as well to demonstrate that. Only with more convincing evidence could this argument become more than just an emotional appeal.
选择性样本攻击 A threshold problem is that the author provides no evidence to claim that the general group as a whole is of the same characteristic. The example cited, while suggestive of this trend, is insufficient to warrant its truth because there is no reason to believe that the sample is representative of the whole general group. One need only observe A to appreciate the truth that such evidence would be clearly unrepresentative of the entire general group for obvious reasons. In fact, in face of such limited anecdotal evidence, it is fallacious for the author to draw any conclusion at all.
样本数量攻击 Another problem that seriously weaken the logic of this argument is that the survey cited is based on too small a sample to be reliable. Offered in support of the argument, the only evidence is that. Unless it can be shown that the sample is typical of all general group, the fact that is groundless for claiming that.
Loaded question和诚实性攻击 What’s more, the methodology of the survey is problematic for two reasons. For one thing, we are not informed whether the survey provided only 3 alternatives. If it did, the respondents, who might very well prefer another choice not provided in the survey, might be forced to give up their preferences. For another thing, we are not informed whether the survey response were anonymous or even confidential. If they were not, regardless of whether the responses were truthful, the respondents might supply responses favored by their superiors who might conduct the survey. Both events would lead this survey unreliable, let alone about drawing the conclusion that.
样本代表性攻击Moreover, a possible methodology problem in this argument is that of bias. At first place, the term ‘so many’ is too vague to be statistically meaningful. Even if by ‘so many’ the author means ‘nearly all’, perhaps workers who were more interested than others in the survey might be more likely to respond to the questionnaire—possibly because they found the questionnaire more attractive. Lacking in the information about the number of workers surveyed and the number of respondents, it is impossible to assess the validity of the survey. For instance, if 1000 workers were surveyed but only 10 responded, the result should be highly suspect. Because the author fails to account for other interpretations such as this, the survey would be useless in concluding that.
样本时效性攻击Last but not the least, it is necessary to point out another flaw that significantly undermines this argument that the author neglects to indicate how recently the survey was actually conducted. When used to generally claim a particular group, the samples should be close enough to support the generalization, so as to prevent historical changes from invalidating the generalization. All we know is that the survey is recently published. The less recent the survey itself, the less reliable the results to demonstrate that.
必要性攻击At first place, the author unfairly assumes that A determined solely by B. While B is a seemingly important element in determining A, it is hardly the only or even necessarily required element. This assumption overlooks other crucial criteria in determining A—such as C, D, to list just a few. Accordingly, without accounting for these potential factors, the author concludes too hastily that these prescriptions cited are the best means of achieving goals.
充分性攻击At second place, the author’s solution rests on the assumption that B is sufficient to give birth to the desired goals. However, if it turns out that A is due to a combination of factors, some of which will remain unchanged in the future, such as C and D, mere B might have no stimulating impact on A.
时序性因果攻击Firstly, the author engaged in ‘after this, therefore, because of this’ reasoning. The line of reasoning is that because A before B, the former caused the latter. However, this reasoning is fallacious unless other possible causal factors have been considered and ruled out. For example, perhaps C. Yet another possibility is that D. As a result, any decision aimed at addressing the problem of B must be based on more thorough investigation to gather data in order to narrow down and locate the actual cause of B.
同时性因果攻击Secondly, the author’s solution rests on the assumption that A is the cause of B just because A coincided with B. However, a mere positional correlation does not necessarily prove a causal relationship. In addition, all other prospective causes of B, such as C and D, to list just a few, must be ruled out. Lacking detailed analysis of the real source of B, it would be sheer folly to attribute B to A.
忽略他因攻击Thirdly, the author has focused only on B. A more detailed analysis would reveal that other factors far outweigh the factor on which the author focuses. For example, C and D. Lacking a more comprehensive analysis of the causes of A, it is presumptuous on the part of author to claim that A determined sole by B.
因果倒置攻击At last, it is possible that the author has confused cause with effect respecting A. Perhaps B was a response to A. Since the author was failed to account for this possibility. The claim that is completely unwarranted.
差异概念攻击To begin with, we must establish the meaning of the vague concept A. If the term were synonymous with B, the evidence cited would strongly support the argument. However, A may be defined in other terms such as C and D. Accordingly, the author has drawn the conclusion too hastily due to the ignorance of other definitions of A.
范围内推攻击What’s more, the most egregious reasoning error in this argument is the author’s use of evidence pertaining to a general group as the basis of a particular B. Even if the reasoning may be sound in general sense, the particular situation that B is involved in may not be representative of the entire general group. It is possible that. If this is the case, the claim that is ill founded.
不随时变攻击Moreover, the author unfairly assumes that A will remain unchanged over the next decades. However, a mere recent one-year A is insufficient to claim that. Statistics form such limited anecdotal evidence is not a good indicator for this trend. In addition, it is possible that in the future, should this trend greatly fluctuate or even reverse, the adopting of the author’s proposal might give birth to B, for whatever reason, which might have a negative impact on C1 and, in turns, C2. Admittedly, this argument would be even weaker and weaker each day as time goes by.
错误类比攻击Additionally, it is highly doubtful that strategies drawn from A are applicable to B. However, differences between the two clearly outweigh the similarities, therefore making the analogy much less than valid. For example, C and D all affect A but virtually absent in B. Similarly, E and F, which significantly influent B, have no impact on A. Accordingly, problems such as these show that A and B are dissimilar in ways relevant to the likelihood that B will experience the same consequence if it adopts A’s strategies.
非此即彼攻击Last but not the least, the author unfairly assumes that a reader must make a either-or choice. However, the argument fails to rule out possibility that adjusting A and B might produce better results. Moreover, if the author is wrong in the assumption that A and B are the only causes of the problem, thus the most effective solution might include a complex of other factor changes—such as C and D, to list just a few. In any event, the author provides no justification for the mutually exclusive choice imposed on the reader.