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
