A1. The following editorial appeared in the South Fork Gazette.
“Last year, the city contracted with Flower Power to plant a variety of flowers in big decorative¹ pots on Main Street and to water them each week. By midsummer many of the plants were wilted². This year the city should either contract for two waterings a week or save money by planting artificial flowers in the pots. According to Flower Power, the initial cost for artificial flowers would be twice as much as for real plants, but after two years, we would save money. Public reaction certainly supports this position: in a recent survey, over 1,200 Gazette readers said that the city wastes money and should find ways to reduce spending.”
1，  花枯萎了不只和浇水次数有关
2，  不能只从成本考虑要用假花还是真花还要从收益角度
3，  最后的那个调查不可靠
4，  那个公司提供的成本数据是否可靠

sample1
In this argument, the author indicates that it is cost-effective to replace real flowers by artificial flowers. To support his conclusion, the author points out that those real flowers need more water to survive in mid-summer. In addition, he reasons that even though the use of artificial flowers spends twice the amount of money of the maintenance of real flowers initially³, people will be beneficial to this alternative in a long run. Moreover, a recent survey quoted is cited citizens’ dissatisfaction with the fiscal⁴ performance and their hope of reduction of public spending. As I analyze⁵ this argument in close concert, the author’s view is not very convincing for three major reasons.
 
In the first place, the evidence the author provides is insufficient⁶ to support that the use of artificial flowers can reduce public spending, even in a long run. The author may emphasize the merit of artificial flowers that they never need water to survive or grow. But he fails to notice that over time, the outside artificial flowers inevitably⁷ become messy and dirty, weakening their decorative function. Then people also have to wash them with considerable amount of water. Furthermore, the sun fades the color of artificial flowers. Hence, the city need spend a supplementary⁸ cost to replace old ones.
 
In the second place, the author distorts the readers’ ideas about ways to reduce public spending. Readers never specify⁹ that an end to the use of real flowers should be one way to reduce public expense. Readers may call for changes in other public work and services other than the replacement¹⁰ of real flowers. As far as I know, lots of people have inherent preferences for real flowers, due to their peculiar¹¹ features. When real flowers are blossoming, fragrant¹² smell spreads over a large area. Compared with artificial flowers, real flowers can change their appearance at all seasons.
 
In the third place, the survey quoted by the author is worthless because some of its details have not been provided. Without additional information, such as the total number of people in the city or the framework of who were conducted, the result of the survey may lack representative. We can picture that the city has a population of more than 5 million, but this survey conducted only 1200 people, especially readers who are easily affected¹³ by the gazette’s editorial.
 
Since the author commits logical mistakes mentioned above and fails to consider the whole situation comprehensively, his ideas should not be adopted. The conclusion would be strengthened if he can obviate¹⁴ these three major logical msitakes.