一、換代言人(同上月27)
本月原始
公司市場總監(jiān)說，過去的campaign很成功increase in sales，在開始4年成功用體育明星代言，吸引了中老年消費者，而后2年sales remained stable。 為了another increase in sales, 公司應該hire 某個樂團代言，因為他們是當下music sensation，來吸引untapped youth market。這樣公司就能又increase in sales了。
考古
V1.引言：director 寫給 CEO的(賣 grooming product的公司)
內容：公司四年前請了知名運動員作為代言人，銷量上升了，but in the last two years 銷量保持不變，如果想要在一次是銷量提升，要再請個代言人。此外，這次要請DC，他是當下年輕人歡迎的歌星，我們要將目標人群有中年消費者轉向年輕人。
V2.Company's cologne has experienced significant sales increase of 30% annually in the first four years of its launch. The company uses advertising campaign with professional sports stars and research found that most customers are middle-aged men. Cologne sale slowed down in recent years and CEO believes that they need to get younger people to use the cologne and he will hire Justin Bieber as their new spokesperson to achieve this.
參考思路
1.錯誤因果關系：代言人和銷量上升。也許香水本身的定位就是中年男性，比如味道或者價位，換代言人并不會產生多少改變。銷量不變可能是其他很多原因造成的，比如economic recession等等。
2.時地全等：過去用代言人這招管用，不代表將來還是有用， 也許其他很多競爭者都用這招了。last two years銷量不變不代表以后銷量也不變。
3.無關假設：歌星一定能吸引年輕人。沒有證據支持這種說法，年輕的明星并不代表就能吸引到年輕男人，比如可能一般男生關注明星比較少，或者在男生中其實運動員更受歡迎，換了還不如不換。
二、Oak City
本月原始
V1.一個editorial，講Oak城(什么，橡樹城?)市中心建了shopping mall以后出現各種癥狀，1商鋪倒閉2停車位不夠3抓到的罪犯變多。所以咱們E城不應該建這種。
V2.好像是說在oak城建shopping mall后各種弊端，因此在elm城考慮不要建。
考古原題!!(OG13第52個)
The following editorial appeared in the Elm City paper:
"The construction last year of a shopping mall in downtown Oak City was a mistake. Since the mall has opened, a number of local businesses have closed, and the downtown area suffers from an acute parking shortage, and arrests for crime and vagrancy have increased in the nearby Oak City Park. Elm City should pay attention to the example of the Oak City mall and deny the application to build a shopping mall in Elm City."
Discuss how well reasoned .... etc.
Elm城的報紙上的社論：
去年在橡樹城市中心修建購物中心是個錯誤。由于中心開業(yè)，大量的本地企業(yè)倒閉了。而且市中心受到嚴重缺乏停車位的困擾。在附近的橡樹城公園拘捕的罪犯和流浪漢也增加了。榆樹城應該注意橡樹城購物中心的例子并防止在榆樹城建立購物中心。
參考思路
1.錯誤因果關系：不一定是由于mall open導致其他商店關閉
2.時地全等：Elm City與Oak City不可完全等同
3.忽略了帶來的好處，例如create new occupations
參考例文
In this editorial the author rebukes Oak City for allowing the construction of a new downtown shopping mall. Citing a number of problems that have occurred since the building of the mail, the author concludes that the residents of Oak City have not benefited from the mail and that Oak City exercised poor judgment in allowing the mail to be built. Among the problems cited by the author are the closure of local businesses, lack of parking in the downtown area, and increased trash and litter in a city park near the mall. Moreover, the author argues that profits derived from sales are not benefiting Oak City because the owner of the mall lives in another city. The author's argument is problematic in several respects.
In the first place, the author assumes that addition of the new mall is the cause of the various problems cited. The only evidence offered to support this claim is that the construction of the mall occurred before these problems manifested themselves. However, this evidence is insufficient to establish the claim in question. A chronological relationship is only one of the indicators of a causal relationship between two events.
In the second place, the author has focused only on negative effects the malt has had on the city. A more detailed analysis of the situation might reveal that the positive benefits for the city far outweigh the problems on which the author focuses. For example, new jobs might have been created for the residents of Oak City, and tax revenues might have been increased for the city. Lacking a more comprehensive analysis of the impact of the mail on Oak City, it is presumptuous on the part of the author to conclude that Oak City's decision to allow the mall to be built was incorrect.
In conclusion, the author's argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the argument the author would have to demonstrate that the construction of the mall caused the various problems mentioned. The author would also have to show that the negative effects of the project outweighed the positive effects.