第二篇文章：
The University of Claria is generally considered one of the best universities in the world because of its instructors' reputation, which is based primarily on the extensive research and publishing record of certain faculty members.
In addition, several faculty members are internationally renowned as leaders in their fields.
For example, many of the faculty from the English department are regularly invited to teach at universities in other countries.
Furthermore, two recent graduates of the physics department have gone on to become candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physics.
And 75 percent of the students are able to find employment after graduating.
Therefore, because of the reputation of its faculty, the University of Claria should be the obvious choice for anyone seeking a quality education.
原题逻辑顺序：UC老师牛==〉UC学生牛==〉想牛就选择UCwww.Ｅxamda.CoM考试就上考试大
While the University of Claria appears to have an excellent reputation based on the accomplishments and reputations of its faculty, one would also wish to consider other issues before deciding upon this particular institution for undergraduate or graduate training. 首先承认UC的声望看起来确实不错，算是部分的同意了原文的观点，并简短的展开论证说事因为老师牛。随后便指出还有他因，但是并没有展开它因。(留到正文第一段来展开) The Physics and English departments are internationally known, but these are only two of the areas in which one might study. 这里指出论据的不充足。实际上是在攻击原文的论据逻辑链。Other departments are not listed; is this because no others are worth mentioning, or because no other departments bothered to turn in their accomplishments and kudos to the publicity office? 给出了论证：提出两个问题进行质疑。
The assumption is that because English and Physics have excellent brains in the faculty offices, their teaching skills and their abilities to pass on knowledge and the love of learning to their students are equally laudable. BODY打头第一段与开头段第一句话对应，具体提出了他因。同时，还注意到所让步的内容(老师牛学校就牛)仍然是一致的。质疑：老师牛，就能提供牛的教育吗? Unfortunately, this is often not the case. 一针见血的指出不是这么回事。 A prospective student would certainly be advised to investigate thoroughly the teaching talents and attitudes of the professors, the library and research facilities, the physical plant of the departments in which he or she was planning to study, as well as the living arrangements on or off campus, and the facilities available for leisure activities and entertainment.具体论证：还有其他的因素决定教育的水平的。论证方法为列举他因。这里的论证给人的感觉就是列的东西多，而且细。
This evaluation of the University of Claria is too brief, and too general. 这里对于原文中逻辑链中的论据不足进行证明。实际上就是和开头段后两句话(只有两个系不够)相对应，进一步展开进行证明原文的论据怎么不充分，我们要全面评估UC除了只知道提供的两个系的信息外还要知道哪些。Nothing is mentioned about the quality of overall education; it only praises the accomplishments of a few recent graduates and professors.
这里属于复述原文，立好靶子做好准备开始攻击。More important than invitations to teach elsewhere, which might have been engineered by their own departmental heads in an attempt to remove them from the campus for a semester or two, is the relationship between teacher and student.
Are the teaching faculty approachable? Are they helpful? Have they an interest in passing on their knowledge? Are they working for the future benefit of the student or to get another year closer to retirement? How enthusiastic are the students about the courses being taught and the faculty members who teach those classes? Are there sufficient classes available for the number of students? Are the campus buildings accessible; how is the University handling all those cars? Is the University a pleasant, encouraging, interesting, challenging place to attend school? What are its attitudes about education, students, student ideas and innovations, faculty suggestions for improvement?一开始攻击就一连问了十几个问题，显得很雄辩，这里问了这么多问题，核心只有一个，学校老师学生之间三角关系到底怎么样。具体论证是先说师生关系(老师对待学生怎么样，学生对待老师怎么样)，再说学校和学生(学校给学生提供了哪些便利)，最后说学校和老师和学生的关系(老师通过学校为了提高给学生的教育提出了什么意见么).可以说是层层递进，还是很有章法的!论证手法为列举他因。
What about that 75% employment record? 这里质疑了逻辑链中的另一个论据，即毕业生找工作的数据也能推出学校牛。核心论证方法为质疑假设，提出建议。Were those students employed in the field of their choice, or are they flipping burgers and emptying wastebaskets while they search for something they are trained to do. 这里论证方法为质疑假设(是否是工作在喜欢的专业)，我观察到这里并没有给出质疑后的结果的展开。也许作者认为展开后的结果是不言而喻的所以就不再展开细说了。这就是作者大牛之处，他懂得驾驭知道什么地方说到多少就够了，所以越是大牛的文章就越是短。这个文章就很短。而对于我们来说，它的论证思路是一定要接受，但是为了保险起见，还是把每个论点发展完全比较好，比如在这里加上：要是他们不在自己的最喜欢专业工作，说明他们还是没有足够的实力让自己喜欢的工作接受自己，从而说明母校的教育也没有那么牛啊。我们论证的越充分，显然就越有把握拿高分。A more specific statement about the employability of students from this University is needed in order to make the argument forceful.提出了建议，使得论证更有力。
The paragraph given merely scratches the surface of what must be said about this University in order to entice students and to convince them that this is the best place to obtain a quality education. 这篇文章在最后没有肯定原文的初衷，而是不留情面的批评!这是要看具体题目的，像这样的广告，本来就没有多么高尚的目的。而上一篇范文人家不管逻辑有多差，但人家总是抱着善良的一颗心，为了保护大家的生命安全啊!所以说，我们对于原命题的立意心里要有数。 Much more work is needed by the public relations department before this can be made into a four-color brochure and handed out to prospective students.最后还是提出了整体的宏观的建议改进意见。
COMMENTARY
The writer of this outstanding response acknowledges that the University of Claria may "appear" to have a sterling reputation, but cogently argues that such a reputation is perhaps unwarranted in light of the thin and misleading information provided.
The essay's insightful critique targets several instances of unsound reasoning in the argument:
-- that the argument identifies academic achievements in only two departments;
-- that publications and research prove little about the quality of teaching at Claria; and
-- that the student employment statistic lacks specificity and may be entirely bogus.
The writer probes each questionable assumption and offers alternative explanations, pointing out, for instance, that invitations for faculty to teach elsewhere may have been purposely arranged in order to temporarily remove them from campus and that the employed students may be "flipping burgers and emptying wastebaskets."
In addition, the response perceptively analyzes many features -- omitted by the argument -- that could more convincingly make the case that Claria is "the obvious choice."
The essay suggests that the search for a quality education would, at least, need to investigate the teaching strengths of the faculty; ideally one would also ask about research facilities, the university's physical plant, availability of classes, even parking arrangements!
Although the fourth paragraph ("What about that 75% employment record?") interrupts this discussion, the essay is, on the whole, logically and effectively organized.
Each paragraph develops the central premise: that the argument is uncompelling because it fails to use more valid indices of educational quality.
The writing is succinct, graceful, and virtually error-free, distinguished by impressive diction ("kudos," "laudable," "engineered," "entice"), as well as syntactic sophistication.
For all of these reasons, the essay earns a 6
