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（面积） 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."
论据１：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
论据２：if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland
论据３：If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage（面积） would probably be devoted to athletic fields
论据４：a large majority of our children participate in sports
结论：Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland
１．从论据１，２到论据３的推理本身就可以质疑，既然５年前决定了不开发，那么必须有充足的理由确定现在的情况发生了改变．否则，不能说现在就必须reconsider this issue
２．论据３的本身推理有错误，没有证据表明学校建成了就no shopping centers or houses can be built there，剩余的能够兴建体育场的面积完全能够保证建立起shopping centers and houses.相反，也许是学校内的建成促进了购物和住房的发展（许多家庭为了孩子上学会在附近阻房子住，刺激两者发展）同时，我们是否有足够的经费建立体育场也是一个疑问．
３．a large majority of our children participate in sports不能说明大家参加的运动都必须在田径[运动]场上进行．也就是说田径场不能适合所有孩子的需要，同样，相对于park, school也不是适合所有市民的需要的．
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.
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.（这种开头可以说是非常详细的复述了原文的内容，并且可以通过黑体的短语看出作者复述的顺序，写了１３７词，这里还没有进入正式的批驳，这是不是可以作为＂开头就要开门见山点题＂这样一个观点的反例呢？）
This letter is a one-sided argument about the best use of the land known as Scott Woods. The author may be a parent whose child would benefit from a new school,（学生家长方面） a teacher who thinks a school would boost the community,（教师方面） or just a resident of Morganton. （中立方面） Regardless of who the author is, there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore.（这个并列写的非常的妙，大家一定能体会出来overlook和choose to ignore用在这里有怎么样的含义）作者本段其实在质疑原文作者的立场是否中立，如果不是中立的立场，而是利益涉及的一方，那么以后的论断就很难说服别人．
Using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for a natural parkland.（首先就很明确的把build a school和 a natural parkland完全分离开，使后面原文作者的说法完全被推翻，这可以说是一个核心的问题） 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.（两者的主要区别） 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. On the other hand, anyone can go to a park and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness. The use of the land for a school would destroy the benefit of a park for everyone. 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.
Another point （自然的过度，没有用first, secondly……）the author stresses is that the use of the land for things like athletic fields somehow rationalizes(使．．．．．．合理化) the destruction of the park. What about children who don't play sports? （首先考虑到不是所有的children都会使用运动场） 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. （park和运动场的第二个区别） 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.
The author's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this...""is easily arguable. 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. 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. The only way to do this is to keep it in an undeveloped state. Using the land for a school does not accomplish this.（总结，重述，可以发现作者的总结没有丝毫和前面重复的说法，虽然说的是一样的意思！这一个总结段是总结全文的经典！）
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.
The author's argument is weak. （本文的开头算是开门见山的分析）Though he believes Scott Woods benefits the community as an undeveloped park, he also thinks a school should be built on it. Obviously the author is not aware of the development that comes with building a school besides the facilities devoted to learning or sports. He does not realize that parking lots will take up a substantial area of property, especially if the school proposed is a high school. We are not given this information, nor the size of the student body that will be attending, nor the population of the city itself, so it is unclear whether the damage will be great or marginal.（质疑了建立学校对public land的影响） For a better argument, the author should consider questions like what sort of natural resources are present on the land that will not remain once the school is built? Are there endangered species whose homes will be lost? And what about digging up the land for water lines? It is doubtful whether the integrity of Scott Woods as natural parkland can be maintained once the land has been developed.（详细分析可能的情况和造成的影响！） It is true that a school would probably not cause as much damage as a shopping center or housing development, but the author must consider whether the costs incurred in losing the park-like aspects of the property are worth developing it, when there could be another, more suitable site.（权衡得失问题！） He should also consider how the city will pay for the property, whether taxes will be raised to compensate for the expense or whether a shopping center will be built somewhere else to raise funds.（建立学校的花费怎么解决？） He has not given any strong reasons for the idea of building a school, including what kind of land the property is, whether it is swampland that will have to be drained or an arid, scrubby lot that will need extensive maintenance to keep up the athletic greens. The author should also consider the opposition, such as the people without children who have no interest in more athletic fields.（这就是也在质疑建立学校对那些没有孩子的人的影响，很明显，学校针对的人群必然小于park针的人群！） He must do a better job of presenting his case, addressing each point named above, for if the land is as much a popular community resource as he implies, he will face a tough time gaining allies to change a park to a school.
After describing the argument as "weak," this strong essay goes straight to the heart of the matter: building a school is not (as the argument seems to assume) innocuous; rather, it involves substantial development. The essay identifies several reasons to support this critique. The writer then points to the important questions that must be answered before accepting the proposal. These address
-- the costs versus the benefits of developing Scott Woods
-- the impact of development on Scott Woods
-- the possibility of "another, more suitable site"
The generally thoughtful analysis notes still more flaws in the argument:
-- whether the school is necessary
-- whether the selected site is appropriate
-- whether some groups might oppose the plan
Although detailed and comprehensive, the writer's critique is neither as fully developed nor as tightly organized （关键的问题是没有详细的展开和条理的组织）as a 6 essay. The response exhibits good control of language, although there is some awkward phrasing (e.g., ".??爂aining allies to change a park to a school"). Overall, this essay warrants a score of 5 because it is well developed, clearly organized, and shows 5-level facility with language.