时序性因果攻击　Firstly, the author engaged in ‘after this, therefore, because of this' reasoning. The line of reasoning is that because A before B, the former caused the latter. However, this reasoning is fallacious unless other possible causal factors have been considered and ruled out. For example, perhaps C. Yet another possibility is that D. As a result, any decision aimed at addressing the problem of B must be based on more thorough investigation to gather data in order to narrow down and locate the actual cause of B.
　　同时性因果攻击　Secondly, the author's solution rests on the assumption that A is the cause of B just because A coincided with B. However, a mere positional correlation does not necessarily prove a causal relationship. In addition, all other prospective causes of B, such as C and D, to list just a few, must be ruled out. Lacking detailed analysis of the real source of B, it would be sheer folly to attribute B to A.
　　忽略他因攻击　Thirdly, the author has focused only on B. A more detailed analysis would reveal that other factors far outweigh the factor on which the author focuses. For example, C and D. Lacking a more comprehensive analysis of the causes of A, it is presumptuous on the part of author to claim that A determined sole by B.
　　因果倒置攻击　At last, it is possible that the author has confused cause with effect respecting A. Perhaps B was a response to A. Since the author was failed to account for this possibility. The claim that is completely unwarranted.
　　差异概念攻击　To begin with, we must establish the meaning of the vague concept A. If the term were synonymous with B, the evidence cited would strongly support the argument. However, A may be defined in other terms such as C and D. Accordingly, the author has drawn the conclusion too hastily due to the ignorance of other definitions of A.
　　范围内推攻击　What's more, the most egregious reasoning error in this argument is the author's use of evidence pertaining to a general group as the basis of a particular B. Even if the reasoning may be sound in general sense, the particular situation that B is involved in may not be representative of the entire general group. It is possible that. If this is the case, the claim that is ill founded.
　　不随时变攻击　Moreover, the author unfairly assumes that A will remain unchanged over the next decades. However, a mere recent one-year A is insufficient to claim that. Statistics form such limited anecdotal evidence is not a good indicator for this trend. In addition, it is possible that in the future, should this trend greatly fluctuate or even reverse, the adopting of the author's proposal might give birth to B, for whatever reason, which might have a negative impact on C1 and, in turns, C2. Admittedly, this argument would be even weaker and weaker each day as time goes by.
　　错误类比攻击　Additionally, it is highly doubtful that strategies drawn from A are applicable to B. However, differences between the two clearly outweigh the similarities, therefore making the analogy much less than valid. For example, C and D all affect A but virtually absent in B. Similarly, E and F, which significantly influent B, have no impact on A. Accordingly, problems such as these show that A and B are dissimilar in ways relevant to the likelihood that B will experience the same consequence if it adopts A's strategies.
　　非此即彼攻击　Last but not the least, the author unfairly assumes that a reader must make a either-or choice. However, the argument fails to rule out possibility that adjusting A and B might produce better results. Moreover, if the author is wrong in the assumption that A and B are the only causes of the problem, thus the most effective solution might include a complex of other factor changes—such as C and D, to list just a few. In any event, the author provides no justification for the mutually exclusive choice imposed on the reader.
　　以上为大家推荐了一些GMAT作文考试的实用模板，考生可以适当参考，并通过大量的写作练习来逐步提高自己的GMAT作文的写作水平，从而在GMAT考试中取得更好的成绩。