1.argument是一篇editorial 说一个地区decades以来Citrus的价格涨了非常多，给出了一个柠檬涨价多少的数据。然后这里11年来只有过一次的unfavorable weather，然后好像没啥重要的了，就得出结论这样橘子的涨价要归咎于 growers。 （感谢chenr523 ）
“Over the past decade, the price per pound of citrus fruit has increased substantially. Eleven years ago, Megamart charged 5 cents apiece for lemons, but today it commonly charges over 30 cents apiece. In only one of these last eleven years was the weather unfavorable for growing citrus crops. Evidently, then, citrus growers have been responsible for the excessive increase in the price of citrus fruit, and strict pricing regulations are needed to prevent them from continuing to inflate prices.”
范文：In this editorial the author argues for the imposition of strict pricing regulations in order to prevent citrus growers from continued inflation of prices of citrus fruit. The need for such regulation is supported by the author’s contention that citrus growers have been unnecessarily raising prices of citrus fruit in the past. The evidence for this allegation is the fact that the price of lemons at Megamart has increased from 15 cents per pound to over a dollar a pound during the preceding 11-year period. The author maintains that this increase is unjustifiable because weather conditions have been favorable to citrus production in all but one of those years. This argument is flawed for several reasons.
First and foremost, the author assumes that the only factor that influences the price of citrus fruit is the weather. Other factors such as monetary inflation, increased distribution and labor costs, or alterations in supply and demand conditions are completely ignored as possible sources for the increase. The charge that citrus growers have unnecessarily raised prices can be sustained only if these and other possible factors can be completely ruled out as contributing to the price increases. Since the author fails to address these factors, the recommendation calling for strict pricing regulations can be dismissed out of hand (adv. 无法控制, 脱手, 告终, 立即) as frivolous.
Second, the author assumes that the only way to combat increased prices is through government intervention. In a free enterprise system many other means of affecting the pricing of goods are available. For example, boycotting a product and thereby influencing supply and demand conditions of the commodity is an effective means of influencing the price of the product. In a free market economy the call for price regulation by the government should occur only when all other means to rectify the problem have been exhausted.
In conclusion, the author’s argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the argument it would be necessary to show that the only factor influencing the price increases is the growers’ desire for increased profits.
2. argument 是Olympic Foods 那篇 因为color film processing 变得效率高了推出food processing 也会因为long experience 而minimize costs and maximize frofits。（感谢gmat新手22 ）
“Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. In color film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its twenty-fifth birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits.”
范文：Citing facts drawn from the color-film processing industry that indicate a downward trend in the costs of film processing over a 24-year period, the author argues that Olympic Foods will likewise be able to minimize costs and thus maximize profits in the future. In support of this conclusion the author cites the general principle that “as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient.” This principle, coupled with the fact that Olympic Foods has had 25 years of experience in the food processing industry leads to the author’s rosy prediction. This argument is unconvincing because it suffers from two critical flaws.
First, the author’s forecast of minimal costs and maximum profits rests on the gratuitous assumption that Olympic Foods’ “long experience” has taught it how to do things better. There is, however, no guarantee that this is the case. Nor does the author cite any evidence to support this assumption. Just as likely, Olympic Foods has learned nothing from its 25 years in the food-processing business. Lacking this assumption, the expectation of increased efficiency is entirely unfounded.
Second, it is highly doubtful that the facts drawn from the color-film processing industry are applicable to the food processing industry. Differences between the two industries clearly outweigh the similarities, thus making the analogy highly less than valid. For example, problems of spoilage, contamination, and timely transportation all affect the food industry but are virtually absent in the film-processing industry. Problems such as these might present insurmountable obstacles that prevent lowering food-processing costs in the future.
As it stands the author’s argument is not compelling. To strengthen the conclusion that Olympic Foods will enjoy minimal costs and maximum profits in the future, the author would have to provide evidence that the company has learned how to do things better as a result of its 25 years of experience. Supporting examples drawn from industries more similar to the food-processing industry would further substantiate the author’s view。