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，因为这和新东方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。
In evaluating the evidence of the survey, one must consider how the survey was conducted. 第一点：考虑调查类问题。分为两个分支论点，一个是有倾向的问题，一个是被调查者的代表性。 If the questions were leading or if the survey relied on self reports, the results might be unreliable -- people might just respond with the expected answer. 这里论证是否问卷中有loaded问题，方法为加条件后讨论。One must also consider how broad the survey was. 这里论证被调查者的代表性。方法还是加条件后讨论，三段式论证。 If the survey was limited to a few patients of a certain dentist, the results might be attributable to those particular individuals and that particular dentist.Hence, the generalization drawn might not apply to most people. 这又是典型的三段式论证：如果只是个别医生的个别病人==〉有可能归因于是个别现象==〉得到的结论无法推广到整体。 In addition, even if the survey was broader, one must consider whether it was limited in certain ways.看到这里，一下子就想起了新东方，这正是他们极力推荐的层层让步式论证，后面一段也是这样的论证。论证方法为列举他因。For example, were the survey respondents old people?Was the survey limited to a certain city or geographic region?Factors such as these could explain the survey results and could undermine the generalizability of the survey results.举了两个他因，注意到这里用的是问句，官方范文是很喜欢用问句的。
Even if one accepts the survey results, the argument remains questionable. 作了一下让步，开始攻击因果关系不成立。The argument assumes that the correlation between the use of SMILEBRIGHT and capped teeth means that SMILE BRIGHT causes the need for capped teeth. 这里就复述题目了，同时也是立起靶子，等待攻击。 But the argument fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion.指出没有证据显示有因果关系。先打拆开关系。
In addition, the argument fails to consider the possibility that people who already have capped teeth might prefer SMILEBRIGHT as a toothpaste because it works better on capped teeth.这里举出了个他因，甚至有点想逆转原来的因果关系的意思，从而使已经打拆开的因果关系分的更加清楚。
Finally, the argument's author fails to rule out alternative explanations.这里继续打拆上一段打开的因果关系，提出了他因，就像往伤口上撒一把盐。打个比方，女生家长为了不让女儿和一个男生在一起，就先把他两个给隔离起来，然后最狠的就是，给那个男生找一个巨棒巨棒的新女朋友。For instance, people who brush their teeth more than twice a day might be those who are prone to the need to have their teeth capped. 举出第一种可能性。Weak结论(一天两次更易带牙套)。 It might also be the case that starting with SMILEBRIGHT early in life damages the teeth so that capped teeth will be needed later.
举出第二种可能性。Strengthen原结论(早用早带牙套)的.It also might be the case that SMILEBRIGHT users tend to be the kind of people who are excessively concerned with the appearance of their teeth, perhaps theyre actors, and so are the kind of people who might, sooner or later, want to have their teeth capped anyway.举出第三种可能。论证方法为加条件后讨论，讨论采用三段式。来源：考试大的美女编辑们
In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logocal at first, has several flaws as discussed above. 这句话很经典，摸版性很强。 The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the correlation is indeed a causal relationship -- that using the toothpaste actually causes the need for capped teeth.
给出第一条建议是针对没有因果关系的那段的。It could be further improved by ruling out alternative explanations for the supposed causal relationship.给出的第二条建议是针对因果关系中提供他因的那段。总的来看，这里的提建议的方式以及位置都和新东方和北美范文很像。最后，我们发现这文章所指出的逻辑错误都是大错误，那种脊梁骨似的错误，而对于小错误，比如他们report则不予讨论，看得出来，官方的意思是，无论什么文章，都最优先挑核心逻辑链中的重点错误，小错误能挑出来更好，但没有也没关系，前提是大错误都挑出来了并且论证充分。本文与前面的文章的差别之处就在于，很难找到文章的中心思想，只是罗列了错误并独立的分析，过于平淡，而没有对于文章的核心错误的把握。
COMMENTARY
This outstanding response begins by announcing that the argument "contains several facets that are questionable."
The author then develops the critique around three main points:
-- the reliability and generalizability of the survey results are open to question;
-- the argument assumes that a correlation amounts to a causal relationship; and
-- there are alternative explanations for the facts uncovered by the survey.
Each of these points is analyzed insightfully and in great detail.
The writer demonstrates mastery of the elements of effective writing.
The organization is clear and logical; in fact, the organizational plan outlined in the first paragraph is followed to the letter in the second through fourth paragraphs.
The writing is fluent -- transitions guide the reader from point to point in each paragraph; sentence structures are varied appropriately; diction is apt.
Minor flaws (e.g., the typographical error "quesiton") do not detract from the overall outstanding quality of this critique.
For all of these reasons, the essay earns a score of 6.