The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.
"Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state.
Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland.
But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue.
If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields.
There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."
This letter to the editor begins by stating the reasons the residents of Morganton voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state.The letter states that the entire community could benefit from an undeveloped parkland.The residents of the town wanted to ensure that no shopping centers or houses would be built there.This, in turn, would provide everyone in the community with a valuable resource, a natural park.这里是复述题目的前半部分，即五年前人们的看法以及理由。基本上没有加入任何分析。
The letter then continues by addressing the issue of building a school on the land.The author reasons that this would also benefit the entire community as a natural parkland since much of the land would be devoted to athletic fields.The author of the letter comes to the conclusion that building a school on the land would be the best thing for everyone in the community.这里复述题目的后半部分，即现在要盖学校，作者认为盖学校会有什么效果，以及盖学校是唯一的办法。同志们，第一第二段都是单纯的复述题目，只是稍加了一点层次感，但是几乎没有加上任何分析，以及态度。这实际上是这篇范文的败笔之处。后面的官方评语就是这样说的，说开头段太犹豫了(评语第一段)，并说可以做得更好的(评语最后一段)。所以说这篇文章的开头是考官所不喜欢的，但是为什么也能得满分呢，因为他后面的论证确实很充分，另外也是因为本题本身也真的很难读懂，写到这份上已经不容易了。Awintro里面说了，最后的成绩是看整个文章的整体效果，那么这篇文章虽然有缺点，但还有更大的优点，所以总体是很好的，所以得了满分。从六篇范文的评语里也可以看出来，在这6个满分文章中，有些文章是次满分的，有些文章是满分的，而有些文章是超满分的。我们要做的就是找出每篇文章的优点和缺点，最后汇集优点避免缺点写出一个到处全是优点的文章，那不就是超超超满分了。当然了，这是扯淡，不可能到处都是优点，只能尽量吧。言归正传，这文章的开头应该改进成在简短一点复述题目，至少并成一段，然后加上自己的观点，到底哪里值得后面讨论。
This letter is a one-sided argument about the best use of the land known as Scott Woods. 这里开始分析了，先说是片面的。论证手法为加条件后讨论。The author may be a parent whose child would benefit from a new school, a teacher who thinks a school would boost the community, or just a resident of Morganton. 这里先加上不同的条件，讨论不同的后果，很好的手法阿!你可能会问，他哪里讨论了?没发展讨论哪!其实，当假定作者为教师时，已经在教师的后面的定语从句中给出了充分的演绎，这就是小发展，这就是awintro里强调无数次的cogently，发展于无形之间，我们在写作文的时候也要学会噢。Regardless of who the author is, there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore.这一句话很重要，把前面的假设的变量给排除了，为后面的论证扫清了障碍。
Using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for a natural parkland. 这里指出的是文章的核心的最大的错误，即学校操场不等于原生态。这种论证顺序和其他的不同，没有让步，也没有质疑假设。总体的论证顺序为先讨论一个大的问题，然后再讨论与此大问题相关联的一些小问题。同志们可能要问了这是什么套路阿?其实awintro也推荐过这样的套路,”考试大论坛
The readers know that a writer can earn a high score by analyzing and developing several points in a critique or by identifying a central flaw in the argument and developing that critique extensively.”以上摘自awintro中的一段。 While all the members of the community could potentially benefit from a parkland, only a percentage of the population would realistically benefit from a new school. 这里是分支观点，把原命题给拆分成两个部分以供下面讨论。 The author fails to recognize people like the senior citizens of the community.What interest do they have in a new school?It only means higher taxes for them to pay.
They will likely never to and utilize the school for anything.先说学校操场怎么样(有人不受益)。On the other hand, anyone can go to a park and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness. 再说原生态公园怎么样。(每人受益) The use of the land for a school would destroy the benefit of a park for everyone. 基于以上两点，这句话得出了结论：建学校操场会不如原生态公园好。这个论证还是三段论! In turn, it would supply a school only to groups of people in exactly the right age range, not too young or too old, to reap the benefits.上一句结论的正话反说。本句话很关键!为后一段埋下伏笔。属于逻辑过渡句。
Another point the author stresses is that the use of the land for things like athletic fields somehow rationalizes the destruction of the park.本段是上一段的延续，还是围绕着中心问题进行讨论。我们注意到上一段说学校不能使每一个人受益，只能使其中一部分适龄年轻人收益，这一段就问了：这些适龄年轻人真的受益了吗?所以说是上一段的一个深究，论证的很深入。本段论证方法为列举反例。What about children who don't play sports?Without the school, they could enjoy the land for anything.A playing field is a playing field.Children are not going to go out there unless they are into sports.There are many children in schools who are not interested in or are not able to play sports.
This is yet another group who will be left out of the grand benefits of a school that the author talks about.这里的论证一下去，原文彻底傻了，原来就算是学生也不能够就一定受益阿!这种论证方式，属于递进式攻击。其内涵的逻辑联系之紧密，让人不由得赞叹!牛!这两段是文章最出彩的地方，也是文章在开头不好的情况下能力挽狂澜得到满分的秘密武器。"
The author's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this...""is easily arguable. 最后文章再质疑了结论的可靠性。 The destruction of Scott Woods for the purpose of building a school would not only affect the ambience of Morganton, it would affect who would and would not be able to utilize the space. 先说建学校这事压根就不靠谱。为什么呢?
后面给出了解释。 If the residents as a whole voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state, this argument will not sway their decision.The use of the land for a school will probably benefit even less people than a shopping center would.The whole purpose of the vote was to keep the land as an asset for everyone. 这里通过和购物中心比，得出了结论说当初的投票就是为了大家。这个论证也是全文的亮点，因为他是用原文的条件来攻击原文，它认为购物中心的收入已经是相当高了，但即使这么高的收入也没有原生态公园给每个人带来的收益高，更何况是收益还不如购物中心的学校呢。这里更深层次的隐含意思是：购物中心是所有投资中利润最高的，这都不行，所以任何的改动都是不行的。就必须要保持原生态公园。这里作者的思想多么的锐利。一下子就揪住了原文的一项自我矛盾的地方。The only way to do this is to keep it in an undeveloped state.Using the land for a school does not accomplish this.最终提出了作者的建议。
This outstanding response begins somewhat hesitantly; the opening paragraphs summarize but do not immediately engage the argument.
However, the subsequent paragraphs target the central flaws in the argument and analyze them in almost microscopic detail.
The writer's main rebuttal points out that "using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for natural parkland."
Several subpoints develop this critique, offering perceptive reasons to counter the argument's unsubstantiated assumptions.
This is linked to a related discussion that pointedly exposes another piece of faulty reasoning: that using land for athletic fields "rationalizes the destruction of the park."
The extensively developed and organically organized analysis continues into a final paragraph that takes issue with the argument's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this."
Diction and syntax are varied and sophisticated, and the writer is fully in control of the standard conventions.
While there may be stronger papers that merit a score of 6, this essay demonstrates insightful analysis, cogent development, and mastery of writing.
It clearly earns a 6.