• 測驗時間: 30分鐘
• 測驗題型: 一題分析寫作
• 建議字數: 380-400
題目的套路固定: 大部分的題目，都是有一個"具體的 example" →作者"推出 conclusion"。在這套路之下，便可以有一個固定的 idea 模組，圖解如下:
1. 第一個理由，就直接先從 example 開始攻起，我使用的 "Oversimplification" or "Misrepresented Statistics" (在此使用莫老師的 ideas，特別感謝)。Example 通常本身就會帶來一個不確定的因果關係，先攻這個就對了。
2. 第二個理由，當把例子推論到尚未發生的推論時，那就會有類比上面的問題，所以我第二個例子是 "Wrong Analogy"。 而錯誤類比的問題，又分兩種，一種是例子本質上就有不同 (例如 A 公司和 B 公司)，或者是時間上的不同 (5 年前的 A 公司和現在的 A 公司)。不管如何，類比上一定會有其中一個錯誤。
3. 第三個理由，就是 "Careless Conclusion"，這是我在考場，沒有想到特殊理由時，反而激發我最後一塊 AWA 拼圖的理由。簡單來說，一個題目的結論句，通常都是方法好 or 方法不好。如果題目說這個方法不好而不要用，那就說可以使用改善的方式改進缺點而非不用，或是強調這方法的優點。如果說方法好的時候，可以強調其他方法更好，或是強調此方法的缺點。
The following editorial appeared in the Elm City paper:
“The construction last year of a shopping mall in downtown Oak City was a mistake. Since the mall has opened, a number of local businesses have closed, and the downtown area suffers from an acute parking shortage, and arrests for crime and vagrancy have increased in the nearby Oak City Park. Elm City should pay attention to the example of the Oak City mall and deny the application to build a shopping mall in Elm City.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Example: 某個 shopping mall 成立之後，停車場減少、犯罪率上升。而結論就是推導到，之後的 shopping mall 都應該 deny。這時流程 3 步驟：
1. 先攻擊例子因果 (Oversimplification)： 停車場減少、犯罪率上升，和 shopping mall 沒有絕對關係。這時也必須自己想可能的原因，我在範文之中舉出的是 "人口增加"，考試時記得提出其他原因。
2. 類比錯誤 (Wrong Analogy)：以前的 shopping mall 和之後的 shopping mall 品質不見得一樣，類比可能會有錯誤。
3. 不嚴謹的結論 (Careless Conclusion)：即使 shopping mall 真的會造成停車場減少、犯罪率上升，但也不可忽略他帶來的 benefit。我在文中舉出的例子是 "tax revenue"，有 tax revenue，就可以拿來改善這兩樣問題。
The issue of whether the application to build a shopping mall should be denied in the future is really complex. Some people believe that the application should be abandoned due to the example of the Oak City mall. However, in my opinion, I don’t agree with the argument. The reasons are presented as following:
First, the argument suffers the problem of oversimplification. The author simply attributes (the shortage of the parking spaces and increase in the arrests for crime and vagrancy) to (the opening of a shopping mall). However, the author may overlook the possibilities that factors other than the example of the shopping mall may contribute those problems. For example, the shortage of parking spaces might result from the population growth, rather than from the opening of shopping mall. Thus, the author should take more factors into account to build this argument.
Second, the argument suffers the problem of wrong analogy. The author mistakenly draws the analogy between (example of the shopping mall Oak city) and (other applications of shopping malls). He assumes that other shopping malls in Oak city will cause the same problems as the shopping mall in example did. However, the quality of the construction companies of other shopping malls may differ from that of the previous example. They may build up more parking spaces and make better connections of police force to avoid those problems. Therefore, the argument should examine the analogy in more depths.
Third, the argument suffers the problem of careless conclusion. The author carelessly concluded that (Elm City should deny the application to build a shopping mall in Elm City) to solve the problems due to (the failure of controlling the problems of previous example). However, the opening of other shopping malls might benefit the city and solve the problem. For instance, the shopping malls will generate more tax revenues to the city, so the city could utilize those revenues to create more parking spaces, or hire more police forces to deter citizens from conducting crimes. So, the argument should make the conclusion more carefully to solve the problems.In summary, I don’t agree with the argument, because the argument creates the problems of oversimplification, wrong analogy and careless conclusion. To make the argument more complete, the author should take more considerations into account, and examine the conclusion more carefully to solve the problem.