我们讲了“先梳理passage作者的思路，再逐个排查逻辑漏洞”这个方式来完成对于passage的初步分析。
此方法是为了我们的分析更有序，也就是说我们按照passage作者的思路的顺序来排查，而不是东一榔头西一棒。
这一讲开始，我们开始学习如何在分析时避免另一种常见的混乱。首先，需要先看的passage，如下：
The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals. "In a laboratory study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps, a concentrated solution of UltraClean produced a 40-percent greater reduction in the bacteria population than did the liquid hand soaps currently used in our hospitals. During a subsequent test of UltraClean at our hospital in Workby, that hospital reported significantly fewer cases of patient infection than did any of the other hospitals in our group. Therefore, to prevent serious patient infections, we should supply UltraClean at all hand-washing stations throughout our hospital system." Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted. 这个段落写的如何？ 这个习作段落有一个关键问题在于：前后的内容不一致。习作中，句话表达出的逻辑漏洞类型为“研究方法问题”，因为句的核心意思是“实验有问题”，后面的具体分析却是类似对“它因问题”类型进行讨论，因为第二句一开头就说到“其它因素”。 于是，这里就出现了混乱：究竟是在分析“研究方法问题”还是在分析“它因问题”呢？这种不一致应该避免。
The first assumption is that the experiment of testing the efficiency is definitely justified. However, many other factors can affect the accuracy of this result. For example, if they use ultraclean hand soups with higher density of efficient antibacterial materials to compare with the hand soups they currently used with lower density. The result of this experiment can be totally different.
老师把这一段重新梳理后写出了下面这个示范段落： At the beginning of the passage, the author states a fact; however, while stating the fact, the author also suggests a couple of underlyingassumptions. The first assumption is that the study is well designed and accurately carried out. ←这一句表明逻辑漏洞是“研究方法问题”。 However, if the study has flaws, its result – the 40% greater reduction –is unreliable. For example, the procedure may be flawed: researchers may have done some steps mistakenly. It is also possible that the vessels used in the study are contaminated: there may be some chemicals, in the vessels, that can kill bacteria. ←具体分析的时候，只讨论研究方法中可能出现纰漏，比如：实验人员的错误操作、实验器皿的污染等。这是严格针对“研究方法问题”这个逻辑漏洞类型进行讨论，而没有谈及其它。Second, the author assumes that the concentrated UltraClean will have the same level of effectiveness both in the lab setting and outside the lab.←这一句表明逻辑漏洞是“地点问题”。Since the lab environment usually has better hygienic conditions, UltraClean’s concentrated solution may be that effective only in the lab; in other words, when it is used in the real hospital settings, its effectiveness of killing bacteria may decrease. ←具体分析时，只讨论实验室和医院是不同的环境/场景，专注于讨论“地点/场景/环境的不同可能造成的杀菌效果不同”。 我们在此总结一下：我们对某一处逻辑漏洞进行分析时，应该想清楚这一处逻辑漏洞是设么类型。于是，当分析时的句话体现出逻辑漏洞的类型（后，接下来的具体分析要与句话所指出的类型保持一致。 于是，同学们可能会问：具体有哪些逻辑问题呢？ 下一讲开始，老师会对Argument任务中常见的逻辑类型逐个指明，童靴们记得来蹲哦~
