（2）正文：尽管这是逻辑作文，题干给的像以前的逻辑单选题，但是它是一种作文，不是客观题。大量的使用刻板的逻辑句式对于文章的生动性“百害而无一利”。很多考生背会了什么“孙氏逻辑句法”就在正文处大打出手，用些看上去极能唬人的分析句式，像逻辑专业出身的人那样，左一句“the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy”,右一句“the arguer rests his conclusion on the classic logic fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc”.连拉丁文都用上了，你说老美作何感想。按中国人的话说，叫“掉书袋”，当诸位考生还在自我为这种呆板的句式乐此不疲的时候，你是否留意过GRE作文在你的手下是不是有些散发出像死尸一样的苍白来。作文者，就是要以“能说明问题”为先，而不是在这里“装神弄鬼”，尽管逻辑方面的论证我们需要逻辑知识的支撑，但是我们要作好的只是“借题发挥”、“点到即止”。正确的做法应该是掌握住“错误”，揪住对方的小辫，然后适当搭配着证据的罗列称述，合理选用逻辑句式，一说明问题立刻回来，尽量用例证不要去做逻辑上的因果论证。具体请参看对比以下范文：
4. The following was posted on an Internet real estate discussion site. "Of the two leading real estate firms in our town — Adams Realty and Fitch Realty — Adams is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents. In contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams' revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch, and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago, I listed my home with Fitch and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams."
In this argument, the arguer recommends us to use Adams, one of the two leading real estate firms in our town, to sell our homes if you want to, instead of Fitch, the other leading one. To justify his conclusion, the arguer provides the clear evidence that Adams has 40 real estate agents in contrast to the number 25 of Fitch, even many of which are only part-time. In addition, he cited the fresh statistics of revenues of both Adams and Fitch, which respectively are $168,000 and $144,000. To make it more conceivable, the arguer even lists out a self-experienced case to exhibit the superior sell speed of Adams to Fitch. Although all the evidences above seem reasonable, a careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless it is.
In the first place, the arguer unfairly assumes Adams' service is better than Fitch's with the assumption that more agents, more satisfaction. The 40 agents in Adams might be poorly trained and unqualified with an extremely low work efficiency, thus enlarging the number of the agents is the only feasible compensation. While Fitch's 25 agents may be well trained and be rich in experience, although many of them work only part-time, which under the present work condition is enough. And also the quality of the service can't be oversimplified to only a factor of the number of employees, which, in our common sense, has no necessary correlation. It is some other things that should be taken into consideration, such as social reputation, the feedbacks of customers and the company's culture and spiritual, to avoid making the assertion too unwarranted.
In the second place, the statistics offered by the arguer can't elucidate anything. It seems true that Adams' achievement is greater than Fitch's through the comparison of revenues, but the data itself is too vague to be informative. Taking into account the service charge, which can't be omitted in this case, we absolutely have adequate reasons to doubt the charge from Adams is far larger than Fitch, which eventually leads to such a gap. Another possibility of the result is contributing to the types of house they are entrusted to sell, since no evidence showed that Adams can afford to sell the lower-price estates while Fitch can assume the opposite ones, thus the phenomenon arises.
Last but not least, in short of legitimacy is that Fitch really sells homes slower than Adams does. According to the arguer's narrative, he entrusted his home to Fitch ten years ago when the balance of offer-request heavily outweighed the left side and Fitch selling it in more than four months is nothing but a miracle. Adams, instead, sold his another home in one month last year during which the request for house might be booming as a result of influx of the foreign immigrants. Under this circumstance, Adams' success, however, is merely ordinary. Besides, the two houses sold out no doubt have natural differences, which tightly related to the smooth process of selling, such as location, structure, areas, and materials. The arguer thus makes so hasty a generalization regardless of these crucial points.
As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned in lack of some indispensable evidence. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would demonstrate that the superior quality of Adams' agents and the relatively lower charge comparable to Fitch's. Additionally, more details should be evinced, concerning the actual estate situation in those periods of time and fundamental instructions of the two sold houses, to rule out the above-mentioned possibilities.