在argument essay的第一篇文章里，我们介绍过argument的开头段在于找出原议论文段的逻辑推导关系，梳理和改写文段，并开门见山，写出主旨句。
在开头段后，我们来到了argument写作的中心段，也就是最重要的一环：找出原文的逻辑错误，进行有理有据地驳斥。简单来说，也就是做杠精！
在众多逻辑错误中，经常出现的一种便是调查数据错误。本文就将以调查数据为例，介绍写中心段的4个步骤：
（1）找出原议论文段中的逻辑漏洞
（2）指出需要哪方面的证据
（3）和证据相关的某种可能性
（4）可能性出现后，对结果的推论有何不同
让我们来一起看看题库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"Butter has now been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States.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.
开头段：
关于开头段的写法已在前一篇文章和大家聊过，在这里不做赘述，附上思考过程（论点+论据）和范例
论点：Happy Pancake House should extend this cost-saving change to its restaurants in the southeast and northeast
论据一：Only 2 percent of customers have complained about the replacement
论据二：servers reported that a number of customers who ask for butter do not complain when replacement is offered
论据三：Butter was replaced by margarine in southwestern United States
范例如下：
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.
现在我们正式进入中心段的
步骤一
（1）找出原议论文段中的逻辑漏洞
原议论文中的逻辑链如下：
1.仅有2%的顾客抱怨，意味着剩余98%都很开心 --- 所以顾客并不会区分 --- 所以HPH要推广这一做法至美国的东南／东北地区，以提升利润；
2.许多服务员报告，顾客在点了B而被提供M时并没有抱怨 --- 顾客对于M没有不满情绪 --- 所以美国的东南／东北地区也可以用M替换B；
3.美国西南地区的HPH餐馆，用M替代了B --- 所以HPH要推广这一做法至美国的东南／东北地区，以节约成本、提升利润；
这里原文的三条逻辑链中，前两条都是调查数据的错误，也是本文我们重点关注的焦点，而第三条逻辑链属于“类比错误”，我们会在下一篇杠精指南中和大家具体阐述。
而前两点的调查数据错误，究竟出在哪儿呢？
接下来我们就来逐条分析漏洞，进入
步骤二
（2）指出需要哪方面的证据
1.仅有2%的顾客抱怨，意味着剩余98%都很开心。
2%的顾客抱怨，难道就意味着其余的98%都开心吗？我们在这里缺少关于剩余的98%顾客的更精准的态度方面的调查；
2.许多服务员报告，顾客在点了B而被提供M时并没有抱怨。
注意，这里的服务员报告，也就是report来源的可信度，值得我们深一度的思考
紧接着步骤（2），我们来进一步
扩充证据，展开脑洞，指出和证据相关的可能性，以充实我们的文段
（3）和证据相关的某种可能性
1. 仅有2%的顾客抱怨，并不意味着剩下的98%都开心。
脑洞：
比如说，剩下的98%中有的顾客碍于面子，即使对替换的butter不满意，也不愿意直接confront servers （customers may feel reluctant to do for fear of embarrassment or confrontation）
再比如说，可能唯一投诉的方法就是直接告诉餐厅经理，假如换一种投诉的方法，complaint rate可能会更高
2. 许多服务员报告，顾客在点了B而被提供M时并没有抱怨。这里的服务员报告并不可信。
脑洞：
服务员在点餐时表现良好，由于good service quality 和 overall delicious food导致顾客没有抱怨，这并不代表顾客满意replacement
（4）可能性出现后，对结果的推论有何不同
以上的推断证据和指出的可能性都证明了一点：我们无法确信顾客对replacement是否真正满意，因此，不能盲目推广replacement这一做法至美国的东南／东北地区
让我们再用英文复盘一遍推导的过程：
（1）找出原议论文段中的逻辑漏洞
逻辑漏洞1:
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%.
逻辑漏洞2:
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）指出需要哪方面的证据
逻辑漏洞1:
We could consider the medium that allows the customer to complain about the change
逻辑漏洞2:
There might be explanations for the low rate of complaint when we consider the relationship between servers and customers
（3）和证据相关的某种可能性
逻辑漏洞1:
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.
逻辑漏洞2:
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）可能性出现后，对结果的推论有何不同
In both cases, more systematic and independent investigation into the customer satisfaction about the change of ingredient is necessary to settle this issue.
【竞赛报名/项目咨询请加微信：mollywei007】
