关于Argument对于谬误攻击深度的入门帖
前一阵子在帮同学批改作文的时候，发现刚开始写argument的时候一个很重要的问题就是：谬误是都找出来了，但是对其的攻击的深度却不够。Argument比较重要的一点就是要做到对谬误攻击得有深度、有层次。下面拿一段同学的习作以及一篇范文里的一段来说明问题。先看范文，我把其中一段对作者谬误的反驳拿出来分析一下。
Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour. Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent. But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period. Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.
下面是范文对于“six months”这样一个时间段两个州的情况的比较来进行的反驳：
A six-month period [有些数据调查也有这样的时间限制，比如three months ago，还有recently之类的，这也是很好的一个反驳点。] is not a particularly long time frame for the citizens to determine that speed limit has influenced the number of automobile accidents in the area. [段首就很明确地把中心句给提了出来。从ETS的要求来看，中心句的清晰到位是很重要的。这是源于原来的作文并不是人工改，而是由软件批改。那个软件最先做的事情就是找你的TS，如果没找到，估计分数就会受影响了。] It is mentioned in the argument that Elmsford accidents decreased during the time period. [把文章中的事实先摆出来，然后后面紧接着是对其的反驳。] This may have been a time, such as during harsh weather conditions [关于道路交通事故的题，天气状况恶劣是一个很好的反驳例子。], when less people were driving on the road and therefore the number of accidents decreased. However, Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced by employment or other requirements, were unable to avoid driving on the roads. [比较的时候对应要严格，都是驾驶的时间、次数。] Again, the demographics of the population are important. [另一种可能性。先给出问题所在，然后后面展开分析。] It is possible that Elmsford citizens do not have to travel far from work or work from their home, or do not work at all. Are there more people in Forestville than there were six months ago? If so, there may be an increased number of accidents due to more automobiles on the road, and not due to the increased speed limits. [人多导致车辆多，因而发生事故就很有可能多。] Also in reference to the activities of the population, it is possible that Forestville inhabitants were traveling during less safe times of the day, [交通事故的题，人们的出行习惯也是一个可举例之处。] such as early in the morning, or during twilight. Work or family habits may have encouraged citizens to drive during this time when Elmsford residents may not have been forced to do so.
[段首很鲜明地给出中心句，指出无法说明speed limit和number of accidents之间的联系。后面就紧接着是反驳。要注意的是：作者从两个大的方面来反驳。每一个都是先给出什么方面出了问题，如第一方面给出文中事实，第二次提出population，给人很清晰明了的感觉，后面要对什么问题进行分析和反驳。接下去，对每方面进行分析。要注意的是：举出的可能性都是紧扣他一开始就提出的问题所在之处的，而且在每方面里有的也是分几个层次来写的，如：第二方面讲population，作者提到了人数和车辆数以及事故数量之间的可能关系，以及人们的出行习惯。这就是一个问题之内的多种可能性。另外一点就是，反驳的时候举例很具体，如：it is possible that Forestville inhabitants were traveling during less safe times of the day, such as early in the morning, or during twilight.把可能性直接摆出来，就很令人信服了。]
再回过来看习作中对一个谬误的反驳：
Moreover, there is no evidence to justify the feeling too tired is cause by snore. Although it might be true that snoring stop breathing frequently during the night for a few seconds which results to waking unnoticed. There is not any evidence to support that it is snoring that cause feeling too tired during the day. It might be the reason that tough work cause feeling tired, and not enough sleep can cause it too. [这里一句话把两种反驳的可能性都说掉了，感觉好可惜啊。分开来写详细了，反驳地更有力了，字数也上去了，对吗？] Thus, we can reasonably be unconvinced about what the author concludes. （里面那句是我当时的评语）
“There is not any evidence to support that it is snoring that cause feeling too tired during the day.”这句话和段首中心句重复了，几乎没有起到什么作用。
“It might be the reason that tough work cause feeling tired, and not enough sleep can cause it too.”这是问题最大所在。看这里的tough work和deficient sleep是不是就可以作为两个方面来驳斥作者的观点？完全可以先提出，譬如：It is very possible that tough work causes people to feel tired.然后接下去讲tough work怎么样导致了feel tired了。再可以提出，譬如：It is entirely possible that lacking in sufficient time of sleeping can also be the reason that …然后再分析缺少睡眠导致feel tired。这里这样子可能不太容易写，但我想提出的就是这个问题：不能仅把可能性提过就算了，要对你自己提出的可能性进行分析，并注意要和题目中给出的情况有比较sharp的对比，这样的话反驳就比较到位了。
以上就是自己当时在批改过程中的一点感受。Argument找谬误并不难，要想得高分就必须把对谬误的攻击作深入了。
由于我也是刚从G作文走过来，观察其他战友的习作还不够多，只能把自己的一些初步的想法写在这里。我们作文版的精华区里有imong大牛对于谬误攻击充实深入更详细的探讨。具体请参见：关于argument论证充实深入的实验报告v1.1。
[ 本帖最后由 iq28 于 2007-10-5 13:54 编辑 ] 一会慢慢学习。 ETS给的6分评分标准中的一条是：
clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully
而5分的是：
clearly identifies improtant features of the argument and analyzes them in a generally thoughtful way
我觉得要拿高分首先要保证反驳点有足够的coverage，其次就是insightful 和 generally thoughtful的区别。 Originally posted by leo_chen at 2005-5-9 00:13
ETS给的6分评分标准中的一条是：
clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully
而5分的是：
clearly identifies improtant features of the argument and analyzes ...
一定的coverage是需要的。但其实是谬误要找出来并不困难，所以下一步重点就应该放在论证深度上了啊。:lol up！ GOOD JOB. 加分。
自己的文章也不要不好意思加精华啊。^^
原创文章的话开头可以写明哦 参见斑竹守则。:) up Originally posted by imong at 2005-5-10 12:58
GOOD JOB. 加分。
自己的文章也不要不好意思加精华啊。^^
原创文章的话开头可以写明哦 参见斑竹守则。:)
知道了:lol I gain a lot from Imongs and your analysis, thx! 深受启发！赞一个！
谢谢版主 ^_^ up
:)
[ Last edited by davidjacky on 2005-5-12 at 12:40 ] 楼上的拜托
再发纯净水砍人了就... Originally posted by imong at 2005-5-12 12:11
楼上的拜托
再发纯净水砍人了就...
是我的失职，我这个小弟呀，可能很郁闷吧，我现在删掉一些，imong莫怪他。
[ Last edited by davidjacky on 2005-5-12 at 12:40 ] Originally posted by imong at 2005-5-12 12:11
楼上的拜托
再发纯净水砍人了就...
Sorry...I just want this post not down so quickly
Sorry
:) Originally posted by Orange&Blue at 2005-5-12 14:24
Sorry...I just want this post not down so quickly
Sorry
:)
感谢你的支持！
页:
[1]
2