在上一讲(第51讲)中，我们讲到Argument任务中的【分母】问题。

　　这一讲，我们看【混淆/偷换概念】问题。

　　当然，我们首先要回顾一下【混淆/偷换概念】的逻辑模型(参见第49、50两讲)。

　　混淆/偷换概念

　　1. 没有固定的关键词，所以不易通过措辞去察觉。

　　2. 逻辑：把A等同于B，也就是A和B是两个不同的概念，被混为一谈了。

　　3. 诊断：A和B虽然可能有关联，但是可能不是一码事，不能对等。

　　4. 结果：如果把A和B对等，逻辑很可能是错误的。

　　我们以下面的这篇passage为例，尤其关注高亮的那句话：

　　"Several factors indicate that KNOW radio can no longer succeed as a rock-and-roll music station. Consider, for example, that the number of people in our listening area over fifty years of age has increased dramatically, while our total number of listeners has declined. Also, music stores in our area report decreased sales of rock-and-roll music. Finally, continuous news stations in neighboring cities have been very successful. We predict that switching KNOW radio from rock-and-roll music to 24-hour news will allow the station to attract older listeners and make KNOW radio more profitable than ever."

　　很显然，作者把【商店里的摇滚乐的销量下降】等同于【摇滚乐受欢迎程度的下降】。

　　于是，我们的分析就是说清楚“商店里的摇滚乐的销量≠摇滚乐受欢迎程度”。具体怎么说(怎么写作)呢?

　　首先，你当然可以写成：

　　The decreased sales of the rock-and-roll music at the music stores does not mean decreased popularity of rock-and-roll music. Instead, the decreased sales may be because people have other sources of getting the music, such as the Internet.

　　不过，从【混淆概念】的角度出发，如果我们突出“混淆”，于是可能写成这样更好：

　　The author mentions the decreased sales of store-sold rock music and, at that point, confuses the sales with the popularity. Sales only represent certain listeners’ willingness to pay for the music, and there may be free loaders, who like rock music but do not want to spend money on buying it. In other words, rock-and-roll music may be still popular or even more popular despite its decreased sales.

　　于是，我们可以梳理出分析【混淆概念】时的写作结构：

　　第1步、说明作者confuses A with B。

　　第2步、解释A与B的区别。

　　简单的两个步骤就可以把【混淆概念】问题分析清楚。

　　我们再以下面的这篇passage为第二例，尤其关注高亮的那句话：

　　"A ten-year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helmet while bicycling indicates that ten years ago, approximately 35 percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets, whereas today that number is nearly 80 percent. Another study, however, suggests that during the same ten-year period, the number of accidents caused by bicycling has increased 200 percent. These results demonstrate that bicyclists feel safer because they are wearing helmets, and they take more risks as a result. Thus, there is clearly a call for the government to strive to reduce the number of serious injuries from bicycle accidents by launching an education program that concentrates on the factors other than helmet use that are necessary for bicycle safety."

　　很显然，作者把【事故数量】等同于【严重受伤的数量】。

　　于是，我们的分析就是说清楚“事故数量≠严重受伤的数量”。

　　具体怎么说(怎么写作)呢?我们套用上面梳理出来的写作结构：

　　第1步、说明作者confuses A with B。

　　The author confuses accidents with serious injuries.

　　第2步、解释A与B的区别。

　　When an accident happens, there may be no injuries or only minor injuries. For example, a rider falling off his bicycle gets only a few small scratches or bruises when the bicycle slightly collides with a tree on the sidewalk. In this case, the collision is an accident whereas the rider has no serious injury.

　　至此，大家是否对【混淆/偷换概念】有所掌握或者更加明确了呢?

　　当然，我们在这一轮的“常见十大逻辑漏洞”逐个击破后还会再去进一步透析和复习一轮。

　　下一讲，我们move on，讲【它因】问题，值得期待。