issue 146 model essay
本帖最后由 tesolchina_RA 于 2015-12-14 14:44 编辑issue 79/34/49/76/146/118
34) In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
这道题可以按照不同的领域来讨论
在外交领域，这种来自不同角度和观点的讨论是必不可少，只有通过不同国家代表不同利益的讨论，才有可能使多国之间的关系得到和平发展
可以以中、日、美、越在南海的冲突为例，大国的视角、小国的视角、美国对中国威胁的担忧，中国对资源的需求等等。
在科学研究领域，尤其是社会科学领域，定性研究和定量研究的学者需要取长补短
在政策制定的过程中，民主党和共和党需要在国会里就不同的问题展开讨论。 民主党通常从平民利益出发，共和党更代表商家和中产阶级，需要通过妥协来找到最合适的政策。
49) Claim: We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from those whose views contradict our own.
Reason: Disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
76) We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
118) We can learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
reason和claim是否成立取决于双方能否在科学、理性的框架下讨论。
在科学研究领域，和不同观点的同行讨论可以更好的检验自己的理论以及从对方那里学习新的研究视角。具体例子可以是定性研究和定量研究学者的交流。
在商业投资领域，听一下不看好某个项目的人的意见能帮助我们更全面的考虑这个项目的优缺点，避免不理性的投资。
但是，对于迷信伪科学的人，就没什么好说的。比如相信星座的人总可以从星座描述中找到符合事实的地方，但是其实这是一个模凌两可的封闭系统。比如那些相信圣经的每句话都是真理的狭隘的基督徒，见到他们最好呵呵一下算了，跟他们讲进化论、讲宇宙学就是浪费时间。
貌似这道题难倒不少同学，于是写了这篇范文，供大家参考。
49) Claim: We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from those whose views contradict our own.
Reason: Disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
Whether the claim and the reason hold true or not depends on the specidic contexts of the discussion. When it comes to issues in science and research, talking with people from different POVs can promote learning as we can more critically examine our methods and data with their input. It is also important to discuss political issues with people holding contrasting opinions as we may learn how other stakeholders think about the problems. Nevertheless, discussing religious matters with people from different backgrounds often leads to more disagreement, confrontation and embarrassment as people seldom change their religious beliefs that are at the core of their identities.
In the context of science and research, we can learn more from people holding different views as discussing with them forces us to examine more critically our own methods and data. Consider a researcher in applied linguistics who concludes that learning vocabulary by memorizing word lists is an effective method based on a single case study of a Chinese student preparing for GRE tests. He may benefit from presenting his study in a conference and answering questions from his colleagues who may challenge the validity of the single case study approach. By exploring the advantages and disadvantages of the method, the researcher can learn a great deal from his colleagues about different methods that can be used to study this issue. He can also learn from people who may question the reliability of the data he collected and improve his future studies regarding data collection. Such learning opportunities are not possible if the researcher only presents his/her study to people who agree with him/her.
When it comes to political debate, holding a conversation with people from different backgrounds may also help us to learn how other stakeholders view the issues and reach consensus as a society. An advocate for gay and lesbian marriage, for example, can be enlightened through a dialogue with more conservative people who believe that rights to marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples. The advocate will learn that people who oppose gay and lesbian marriage may have been motivated by some beliefs that are deeply rooted in their lack of interaction with people with different sexual orientations. Through such communication, people from both sides will realize that disagreement can be better understood and handled by promoting mutual respect. Again, people from both sides would miss valuable learning opportunities if they only discuss such matters with friends sharing their views.
As the above two examples clearly illustrate, the claim and the reason do not hold true so long as people can have a rational and peaceful discussion despite their different points of view. Nevertheless, such discussion should be avoided on more sensitive topics where people may become more emotionally charged. Consider a conversation between an atheist and a devout christian. The christian may maintain that the Bible is the main source of truth and wisdom as it was written with inspiration from God. On the other hand, the atheist may ask for concrete evidence about certain claims made in the Bible about Jesus. Such conversation may easily turn into an emotional and irrational conflict as both sides could not hold a rational and peaceful discussion on such a sensitive topic. In cases like this, little can be learned through such discussion as disagreement will likely to cause stress and rule out any possibility of learning.
In conclusion, I believe that people can learn more from communicating with people holding different viewpoints in various contexts so long as they can remain calm and reasonable throughout the conversations. Nevertheless, for certain sensitive topics, it is better to avoid such discussion which can often lead to stress and inhibit learning.
79) Claim: The best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint.
Reason: Only by being forced to defend an idea against the doubts and contrasting views of others does one really discover the value of that idea.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
146) The best test of an argument is the argument's ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
这里的reason未必是对的，可以分两种情况来讨论
在投资领域，不断的回应质疑和挑战，可以更多的发现这个想法的价值。比如，开发微信的团队需要说服高层这个产品比QQ好。
在科研领域，有时候不是想法的价值需要强化，关键是论证中的证据是否充分，而通过和不同意见的人讨论，可以不断检查论据是否充分。可以讲一下论文peer review的过程。
但是上述讨论的前提是持不同意见的人具有理性思考和讨论的能力，如果遇到伪科学或宗教狂热分子就呵呵了
换了一个思路来写这道题 通过argument的结构来构建文章的框架 可能模仿有难度
146) The best test of an argument is the argument's ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Whether or not the proposed test of an argument is the most useful depends on which aspects of the argument that the opponents challenge. As we know, an opponent may challenge the premise, the evidence and the reasoning process of an argument. I think an argument can be best tested through convincing the opponents who cast doubts on the evidence and the reasoning process. Nevertheless, if the opponents do not agree with the basic premise of an argument, it would be fruitless to try to convince them. I’ll explain my position with more concrete examples as follows.
Let’s first consider the argument that gays and lesbians should have the right to get married. The argument may consist of the following premise, evidence and reasoning process. It may be first assumed that people with different sexual orientations should enjoy equal rights including rights of marriage so long as giving them such rights would not harm other people. Next, evidence about gay and lesbian couples getting married does not hurt anyone but may bring benefits to the society can then be presented. Finally, the conclusion that gay and lesbians couples should be allowed to marry can be reached by considering the evidence and the premise.
Suppose someone challenges the evidence that homosexual marriage do not harm the society. To try to convince such opponents, one has to provide all the evidence suggesting that few people suffer from the marriages of homosexual couples. One can even provide evidence to suggest that homosexual weddings will boost the economy by stimulating consumption. Such evidence will be scrutinized critically in the process of trying to persuade the opponents. Weaker evidence will be identified and replaced by stronger evidence, thereby strengthening the argument. In other words, the statement holds true for opponents who question the evidence of an argument.
What if the opponents question the reasoning process of an argument? The process of walking through the reasoning of an argument with the opponents may also help both the proponents and opponents of an argument to better understand how the evidence can be used to support the conclusion. The opponents of homosexual marriages may, for example, ask why the couples should be allowed to marry as long as doing so does not hurt others. The advocate may respond by pointing out that the basic assumption has been made that anyone should have the right to do anything if such behavior does not bring any harm to other members of the society. The strength of such a test can be seen from the fact that convincing the opponents often forces the proponents to make certain implicitly made assumptions explicit.
Nevertheless, the proposed test of arguments would be useless if the opponents question the basic assumptions made in the arguments. Suppose the opponents of homesexual marriages do not agree that people with different sexual orientations should enjoy the same legal rights. Or they find the idea of homosexual marriages intrinsically wrong regardless of whether the marriages may bring damage to the society. In cases like these, it would be pointless to try to convince them about the argument as they do not even accept the premise of the argument.
In conclusion, through examining some hypothetical scenarios about the argument for homosexual marriages, it is demonstrated that the proposed test for arguments can be very helpful when the opponents challenge the evidence and the reasoning process of the arguments but may be of limited value when the opponents simply reject the basic premises of the arguments.
issue范文与提纲目录(tesolchina)
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1900270&fromuid=3675555
specidic -> specific
页:
[1]