The following appeared in a recommendation from the president of Schenectady's Chamber of Commerce:
"Last October the city of Belleville installed high intensity lighting in its central business district and vandalism there declined almost immediately. The city of Schenectady has recently begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district but the rate of vandalism there remains constant. Since high intensity lighting is apparently the most effective way to combat vandalism, we should install such lighting throughout Schenectady. By reducing vandalism in this way, we can revitalize the declining neighborhoods in our city."
The president of Schenectady's Chamber of Commerce recommends the installation of high-intensity lighting throughout Schenectady as the best means of reducing vandalism and revitalizing city neighborhoods. The memo indicates that when Belleville took similar action, vandalism declined there almost immediately. The president also points out that since Schenectady's police began patrolling on bicycles the incidence of vandalism has remained unchanged. The lighting concludes the memo is the only effective measure to the reduction of vandalism. The president's argument is flawed in several critical respects.
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C(Conclusion)。接下来的一句话概括了原文为了支持他的结论所引用的E(Evidence)。最后尾句中给出开头段到正文段的过渡句，指出原文在逻辑上存在F(Flaw)。
First, the argument is based on the assumption that in Belleville the immediate decline in vandalism was attributable to the lighting rather than to some other phenomenon. Perhaps around the same time the city added police units or more after-school youth education programs. Moreover, perhaps since the initial decline vandals will, over time, grown accustomed to the lighting and no longer deterred by it. Without ruling out other explanations for the decline and showing that the decline will be a lasting one, the president cannot reasonably conclude on the basis of Belleville's experience that the same course of action would serve Schenectady's objectives.
Secondly, the president assumes too hastily that Schenectady's bicycle patrol has been ineffective in deterring vandalism. Perhaps other factors including demographic shift or worsening economic conditions have served to increase vandalism. The bicycle patrol could very well have offset that increase. Without showing that all other conditions affecting the incidence of vandalism have remained unchanged since the police began its bicycle patrol, the president cannot make a determination about the effectiveness of such bike patrols. If one does not understand the correlation between rates of crime stopped by the patrol, the mayor can not state that the bicycle patrols did not reduce the convincingly conclude that high-intensity lighting would be a more effective means of preventing vandalism.
本段作为正文第二段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：错误因果(结果错误)。作者指出：原文中“bicycle patrol对vandalism无效的结论”是靠不住的。作者指出造成vandalism的其他因素，如demographic shift和worse econmic conditions，并提出一种可能性：bicycle patrol抵消了这两种影响的增长。最后作者总结，在缺乏other condition unchanged的前提下，结论是不可靠的。
Thirdly, the president assumes that high-intensity lighting and bicycle patrolling are Schenectady's only possible means of reducing crime. In all likelihood Schenectady has other choices: social programs, juvenile legal-system reforms, and so on. Moreover, vandalism is probably not the only type of crime in Schenectady. Therefore, unless the president can show that high-intensity lighting will deter other types of crime as well I cannot take seriously the president's conclusion that installing high intensity lighting would be the best way for Schenectady to reduce its overall crime rate and promote the revitalization of the city.
本段作为正文第三段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：绝对语气。原文中增加high intensity lighting和bicycle patrol是减少S地区犯罪率的唯一方法语气过于绝对。作者提出了其他的方法，例如social program, juvenile legal-system reforms等其他可以减少犯罪率的方法。进一步，作者提出vandlism是众多crime的一种，high intensity lighting 未必是减少总体犯罪率的唯一方法。
Finally, for the sake of the argument, lets assume that high-intensity lighting was Schenectady's best means of reducing crime in its central business district, the president's further assertion that reducing crime would result in a revitalization of city neighborhoods is unwarranted. Perhaps the decline of Schenectady's city neighborhoods is attributable not to the crime rate in Schenectady's central business district but rather to other factors such as overall economic conditions, the availability of more attractive housing in the suburbs, and so on. And if the neighborhoods in decline are not located within the central business district the president's argument is even weaker.
本段作为正文第四段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：错误因果。对于原文中对两城市sick leave的比较，作者应当建立在两城市对本地居民的录用率相同，已经雇员中本地居民的比例相同这两个前提下。原文缺乏对这些前提的说明，所以不能从sick leave比较中得到结论。