The following appeared in a newsletter distributed at a recent political rally:
“Over the past year, the Consolidated Copper Company (CCC) has purchased over one million square miles of land in the tropical nation of West Fredonia. Mining copper on this land will inevitably result in pollution and environmental disaster, since West Fredonia is home to several endangered animal species. But such disaster can be prevented if consumers simply refuse to purchase products that are made with CCC’s copper until the company abandons its mining plans.”
The author of this excerpt concludes that if consumers refuse to buy products made with Consolidated Copper Company (CCC) copper the company will abandon its mining plans in the nation of West Fredonia. No other evidence or assumptions are presented in this argument but let us examine it further.
本段作为Argument开头段，具体功能就在发起攻击。首先，概括原文的结论：West Fredonia的居民可以通过抵制CCC商品来使其放弃在当地的采矿业务。接下来，作者提出，原文并没有其他的Evidence。最后点出原文需要further examine，引出后面的分析。
Essentially, the author provides no evidence in this argument. For example, there is no proof indicating that the West Fredonia land that CCC has acquired the land for the purpose of mining or investing. In consideration of the amount of total land purchased, it is not clear if the land is relatively significant. There is no clear evidence indicating that the land is inhabited by endangered animal species. Barring the presentation of evidence, the author of the excerpt above doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
本段作为正文第一段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：因果类错误(无原因)。作者认为原问没有提供支撑论点的Evidence，例如CCC会在这里mining和investing的证据，purchased land是否relatively significant以及这片土地endangered animal的情况。缺乏论据是的文章的结论站不住脚。
For the sake of the argument, let’s assume CCC does plan mining activities in West Fredonia and that these activities will result in a “disaster.” Regarding a definition of terms, the author fails to illustrate the meaning of the work. For example, disaster, to some, could mean any disruption to the natural habit whereas other people characterize disaster as the complete and total ruin of an area. Without a clear definition, the argument itself is too vague to work with.
本段作为正文第二段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：因果错误(论据模糊)。作者认为，原文并没有说明CCC的行为会在该地区造成怎样的后果，例如disaster, disruption to habit或者total ruin of the area。作者提出，在缺乏详细论据的前提下结论不可靠。
Thirdly, the author’s position that environmental disaster is “inevitable” absent the prescribed boycott precludes the possibility that other measures can be taken to prevent CCC from carrying out its plans, or to offset any harm that CCC causes should it carry out its plans. However, the author fails to provide assurances that no other means of preventing the predicted disaster are available. Lacking such evidence the author cannot reasonably conclude that the proposed boycott is the best way to move forward on the matter.
本段采用了标准的Argument结尾段结构，即：C – S的结尾结构，首先再次重申原文的站不住脚的Conclusion，接下来给出给合理建议Suggestion。
本段作为Argument结尾段，具体功能就总结归纳+建议措施，首先再次重申：“newletter上的political rally”是没有说服力的。接下来作者给出使原文更有说服力几条合理化建议：先要说明CCC的mining plan存在性已经可能造成的后果，然后说明进行cost-benefit anaysis。这几条建议含蓄的隐射前面的错误，前后呼应，文章有力结尾，浑然一体。