|
第六篇文章 A recent survey of dental patients showed that people who use Smile-Bright toothpaste are most likely to have capped teeth -- artificial but natural-looking protective coverings placed by dentists on individual teeth. Those people who had begun using Smile-Bright toothpaste early in life were more likely to have capped teeth than were people who had begun using Smile-Bright later in life. In addition, those who reported brushing their teeth more than twice a day with Smile-Bright toothpaste were more likely to have caps on their teeth than were those who reported brushing with Smile-Bright less frequently. Therefore, people wishing to avoid having their teeth capped should not use Smile-Bright toothpaste. 原文逻辑顺序：用SB的最易带牙套==〉早用比晚用SB的易带牙套，每天用两次SB的更易带牙套==〉想不带牙套就不用SB。 注：这篇文章大家一看肯定特别有亲切感，因为这和摸版和北美范文摸版非常的像!甚至，我怀疑，这就是后两者的原型。这些研究考试的人发现这篇文章具有很好的操作性，并看上去结构特别清晰。所以也就照葫芦画瓢。如果是这样的话，研究这个原版的价值就不言而喻了。 The argument contains several facets that are questionable. 段首句指出存在问题，同样没有过多的修饰，简洁明快。使文章迅速转移到后面的实质性分析。 First, the reliability and generalizability of the survey are open to quesiton. 指出第一个问题是调查类问题，并具体说出了是样本可信度和样本代表性，实际上这和后面的论证是对应的。 In addition, the argument assumes a correlation amounts to a causal relationship. 指出第二个问题，是因果关系。 The argument also fails to examine alternative explanations. 指出第三个问题，没有提出上面因果关系的他因。 I will discuss each of these facets in turn.第一段简洁明了，三个攻击点统领下面三段。这里对原文的复述似乎并不详细。因为原文的逻辑链很简单，作者不用向我们证明他读懂了，我们也知道他肯定读懂了。不像第五个范文那样，读个原题就得半天。实际上，这里的重点放在了后面的分析上，同时在后面的分析中也包含了复述原题中的每一个条件。 | 
