今天，我们看指令： Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation. 指令的要求是“需要回答什么问题”。那么，其实就是首先要去提问吧。那么提问针对什么呢？针对文本中在逻辑上“瓤”（意思是“软、弱、经不起推敲”）的点，去发问，去拷问，去质疑。 我们来看文本： Two years ago, radio station WCQP in Rockville decided to increase the number of call-in advice programs that it broadcast; since that time, its share of the radio audience in the Rockville listening area has increased significantly. Given WCQP's recent success with call-in advice programming, and citing a nationwide survey indicating that many radio listeners are quite interested in such programs, the station manager of KICK in Medway recommends that KICK include more call-in advice programs in an attempt to gain a larger audience share in its listening area. Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation. 然后，我们开始梳理出题目中值得去发问，去推敲、去质疑的点。比如，我们可能找到： 1) Do radio listeners in Medway, where KICK is based, have the same interest in call-in programs as do their counterparts in Rockville, where WCQP is based? 2) What if the nationwide trend does not happen in Medway, in which KICK is based? 3) Another question is about whether or not the increase in WCQP’s listenership was due to the call-in programs. 4) What if the nationwide survey is not well-designed and, as a result, provides false information? 5) Is it likely that call-in advice programs had been popular in the past two years and, currently is obsolescent or will be obsolescent in the future? 6) A further question is whether there are competing radio stations and how many of them there are. 7) The last question may be how many listeners it will gain and how many listeners it will lose because of the cancelation or reductions of established programs. 以上这七个点都是我们的发问和质疑。当然，我们的写作不是罗列处这七个点，而是根据每一个发问点展开。上面的罗列是我们每一个讨论的起点，我们从提问开始，回答这些提问，从而分析对应的逻辑漏洞。具体怎么办？ 具体怎么办？ 我以第（3）点为例演示一个分析过程： 首先提出问题：Another question is about whether or not the increase in WCQP’s listenership was due to the call-in programs. 然后，自己去回答问题。在回答的时候讨论我们的答案对于题目逻辑的影响：It is not unlikely that it is not the call-in advice programs but other factors, such as popular hosts, lucky draws during programs, that have increased WCQP’s listener base. In this case, the introduction of call-in advice programs coincided with those actual contributing factors. 我再以第（7）点为例演示一个分析过程： 首先提出问题：KICK must also consider how many listeners it will gain and how many listeners it will lose. It is crucial to answer these two questions. 然后，自己去回答问题。在回答的时候讨论我们的答案对于题目逻辑的影响：Adding call-in advice programs to KICK’s current timetable requires the cancelation of some other programs or reduction in their allotted times, and the cancelation or reductions may cause losses of listeners that may not be greater than the gains as a result of addition of call-in advice programs. 于是，我们思考一个点：我在自己去回答问题的时候，答案的特点是什么？答案是不是故意对题目的逻辑不利？从而我可以进一步讨论题目在论证中的缺陷以及这个缺陷所带来的不利影响？如果我们发现这个“玄机”，针对这个指令的写作就是“上路子”了。
