The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a company that builds shopping malls throughout the country:
"The surface of a section of Route 101, paved two years ago by Good Intentions Roadways, is now badly cracked and marred by dangerous potholes. In another part of the state, a section of Route 40, paved by Appian Roadways more than four years ago, is still in good condition. Appian Roadways has recently purchased state-of-the-art paving machinery, and it has hired a new quality-control manager. Because of its superior work and commitment to quality, we should contract with Appian Roadways rather than Good Intentions Roadways to construct the access roads for all our new shopping malls."
The vice president of a company that builds shopping malls argues here that the company should hire Appian rather than Good Intentions to build access roads for the company. To support this argument the vice president points out that a certain area of Route 101 that Good Intentions repaved two years ago has deteriorated significantly, while a certain stretch of Route 40 that Appian repaved four years ago remains in good condition. The vice president also points out that Appian recently acquired new state-of-the-art paving equipment and hired a new quality-control manager. The argument seems very convincing at first but does, in fact, require a closer look.
本段采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即：C – E - F的开头结构，首句概括原文的Conclusion。接下两句话来概括原文为了支持他的结论，所引用两个的Evidence，最后尾句中给出开头段到正文段的过渡句，指出有一些逻辑上的Flaw。
本段作为Argument开头段，具体功能就在发起攻击。首先，概括原文的结论：公司副主席认为应该让 Appian 而不是Good Intentions来给公司修路。接下来分别列举了原文为了支持这个结论引用的证据：一是Appian 四年前修的一段路情况良好, 而Good intention两年前修的一段路已经有很多的损坏，二是Appian公司最近有了新设备和新的质检经理，这些信息的归纳都是用于铺垫出正文段的具体攻击。最后点出原文存在逻辑错误，引出后面的分析。
First of all, it is unfair to conclude, based solely on the comparison between the two stretches of highway, that Appian does better work than Good Intentions. The conclusion relies on the assumption that the comparative quality of two contractors' work, rather than some other phenomenon, was responsible for the comparative condition of the two stretches of pavement. Perhaps the stretch that Good Intentions repaved is located in an area whose extremes in climate or high traffic volume serve to erode and damage pavement very quickly. For that matter, perhaps soil or other geological conditions in that area were primarily responsible for deterioration of the pavement along that stretch. In short, without showing that all other conditions in the two areas have been essentially the same, the vice president should not make a determination about the quality of work.
本段作为正文第一段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：错误类比，两条路不同的损坏程度是由两公司的comparative quality造成的，很可能是其他方面的原因(如，extreme climate气候极端, high traffic volume交通流量大)而不只工程质量导致道路损坏程度的差异。
Secondly, it is unfair to conclude based on Appian's recent equipment acquisition and personnel decision that Appian will do a better job than Good Intentions. Perhaps Good Intentions has also acquired the same type of equipment. Moreover, perhaps Good Intentions’ quality-control manager is far more experienced than Appian's new manager, and as a result Good Intentions’ product is likely to be better than Appian's. Besides, equipment and on-site management are only two of many factors affecting the quality of work. There are more factors to consider: the experience and competence of other workers, paving material used and so on. Without showing that the two firms are similar in these and other respects, the vice president cannot justify his recommendation of Appian over Good Intentions.
本段作为正文第三段，攻击文章犯的第二个重要逻辑错误：因果类错误和忽略他因。首先，Appian公司新的equipment和personnel并不意味着他会比Good Intention做的好，也许Good Intention的仪器和经理要far more experienced。其次，equipment和Good intention只是两个方面，还有一些其他因素(experience, worker, material...)，如果没有在其他因素都相同的条件下只比较两个方面，那么得到结论是靠不住的。
Finally, the vice president's recommendation rests on the unlikely assumption that the company has only two alternatives—Good Intentions and Appian. In all likelihood there are many more competitors, some of whom might be able to offer more competitively priced products of equal or greater quality. So, in this argument, the recommendation isn’t just over Good Intentions but over all other companies.
本段作为正文第三段，攻击文章犯的第三个重要逻辑错误：忽略他因。作者只给出了Appian和Good intention这两家公司的情况，而没有提到当地其他公司与这两家公司相比又怎样的情况，因此，应该比较Appian公司和所有其他公司的情况，而不是单单与Good Intention比较。