原【孜循】現已更名為【國際教育智庫】
改變的是名稱，不變的是品質！
在argument essay的第一篇文章裡，我們介紹過argument的開頭段在於找出原議論文段的邏輯推導關係，梳理和改寫文段，並開門見山，寫出主旨句。
在開頭段後，我們來到了argument寫作的中心段，也就是最重要的一環：找出原文的邏輯錯誤，進行有理有據地駁斥。簡單來說，也就是做槓精！
在眾多邏輯錯誤中，經常出現的一種便是調查數據錯誤。本文就將以調查數據為例，介紹寫中心段的4個步驟：
（1）找出原議論文段中的邏輯漏洞
（2）指出需要哪方面的證據
（3）和證據相關的某種可能性
（4）可能性出現後，對結果的推論有何不同
讓我們來一起看看題庫Q51:
The following memorandum is from the business manager of Happy Pancake House restaurants.
"Butter has now been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. Only about 2 percent of customers have complained, indicating that 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 cannot distinguish butter from margarine or they use the term 'butter' to refer to either butter or margarine. Thus, to avoid the expense of purchasing butter and to increase profitability, the Happy Pancake House should extend this cost-saving change to its restaurants in the southeast and northeast as well."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
開頭段：
關於開頭段的寫法已在前一篇文章和大家聊過，在這裡不做贅述，附上思考過程（論點+論據）和範例
論點：Happy Pancake House should extend this cost-saving change to its restaurants in the southeast and northeast
論據一：Only 2 percent of customers have complained about the replacement
論據二：servers reported that a number of customers who ask for butter do not complain when replacement is offered
論據三：Butter was replaced by margarine in southwestern United States
範例如下：
The business manager argues that HPH restaurants in southeast and northeast should follow the practice of replacing butter with margarine as customers in southwest seemed to be happy with the arrangement which can save costs for the company. We need to ask a number of questions about how the replacement affected the food at HPH, how the customers felt about the replacement and what difference there might be between southwest customers and the customers in the other regions in order to evaluate the soundness of the argument.
現在我們正式進入中心段的步驟一
（1）找出原議論文段中的邏輯漏洞
原議論文中的邏輯鏈如下：
1.僅有2%的顧客抱怨，意味著剩餘98%都很開心 --- 所以顧客並不會區分 --- 所以HPH要推廣這一做法至美國的東南／東北地區，以提升利潤；
2.許多服務員報告，顧客在點了B而被提供M時並沒有抱怨 --- 顧客對於M沒有不滿情緒 --- 所以美國的東南／東北地區也可以用M替換B；
3.美國西南地區的HPH餐館，用M替代了B --- 所以HPH要推廣這一做法至美國的東南／東北地區，以節約成本、提升利潤；
這裡原文的三條邏輯鏈中，前兩條都是調查數據的錯誤，也是本文我們重點關注的焦點，而第三條邏輯鏈屬於「類比錯誤」，我們會在下一篇槓精指南中和大家具體闡述。
而前兩點的調查數據錯誤，究竟出在哪兒呢？
接下來我們就來逐條分析漏洞，進入步驟二
（2）指出需要哪方面的證據
1.僅有2%的顧客抱怨，意味著剩餘98%都很開心。
2%的顧客抱怨，難道就意味著其餘的98%都開心嗎？我們在這裡缺少關於剩餘的98%顧客的更精準的態度方面的調查；
2.許多服務員報告，顧客在點了B而被提供M時並沒有抱怨。
注意，這裡的服務員報告，也就是report來源的可信度，值得我們深一度的思考
緊接著步驟（2），我們來進一步擴充證據，展開腦洞，指出和證據相關的可能性，以充實我們的文段
（3）和證據相關的某種可能性
1. 僅有2%的顧客抱怨，並不意味著剩下的98%都開心。
腦洞：
比如說，剩下的98%中有的顧客礙於面子，即使對替換的butter不滿意，也不願意直接confront servers （customers may feel reluctant to do for fear of embarrassment or confrontation）
再比如說，可能唯一投訴的方法就是直接告訴餐廳經理，假如換一種投訴的方法，complaint rate可能會更高
2. 許多服務員報告，顧客在點了B而被提供M時並沒有抱怨。這裡的服務員報告並不可信。
腦洞：
服務員在點餐時表現良好，由於good service quality 和 overall delicious food導致顧客沒有抱怨，這並不代表顧客滿意replacement
（4）可能性出現後，對結果的推論有何不同
以上的推斷證據和指出的可能性都證明了一點：我們無法確信顧客對replacement是否真正滿意，因此，不能盲目推廣replacement這一做法至美國的東南／東北地區
讓我們再用英文復盤一遍推導的過程：
（1）找出原議論文段中的邏輯漏洞
邏輯漏洞1:
Given the fact that only 2% of the customers complained about margarine used to replace butter, the manager believes that 98% of the customers are OK with the replacement. But there might be other reasons why complaint rate was only 2%.
邏輯漏洞2:
As for the servers』 report of few complaints after failing to deliver the order, there are also a number of alternative explanations we need to consider, like the credibility of the servers』 reports.
（2）指出需要哪方面的證據
邏輯漏洞1:
We could consider the medium that allows the customer to complain about the change
邏輯漏洞2:
There might be explanations for the low rate of complaint when we consider the relationship between servers and customers
（3）和證據相關的某種可能性
邏輯漏洞1:
For example, perhaps the only way for the customers to complain about the change was to speak to the restaurant staff directly, which the customers may feel reluctant to do for fear of embarrassment or confrontation. If the restaurant had a Facebook page accepting complaints from the customers, the complaint rate might be much higher.
邏輯漏洞2:
For instance, the food was generally delicious and the service was very good. As a result, the customers chose not to complain about the change of butter. Also, maybe the servers chose to withhold information about the complaints they received from the customers in order to look good to the management of HPH.
（4）可能性出現後，對結果的推論有何不同
In both cases, more systematic and independent investigation into the customer satisfaction about the change of ingredient is necessary to settle this issue.
關於「調查數據」類的邏輯漏洞，大家會寫了嗎？
更多的槓精指南，敬請關注下期公眾號的內容！