arguement就应该这样写(三)！！！
有感于argument的重要，也发现即便对大家强调了要找逻辑链，我改作文的同学也仍然只是缓慢的进步。今天发现一个文章，又出现重大问题。特发上GT，与大家共享。如同前2篇一样，我写的很辛苦，需要你们的支持。并且，这次我写非常详细。
======================================================================
argument56
Collectors prize the ancient life-size clay statues of human figures made on Kali Island but have long wondered how the Kalinese artists were able to depict bodies with such realistic precision. Since archeologists have recently discovered molds of human heads and hands on Kali, we can now conclude that the ancient Kalinese artists used molds of actual bodies, not sculpting tools and techniques, to create these statues. This discovery explains why Kalinese miniature statues were abstract and entirely different in style: molds could only be used for life-size sculptures. It also explains why few ancient Kalinese sculpting tools have been found. In light of this development, collectors should expect the life-size sculptures to decrease in value and the miniatures to increase in value.
拿到题目，当然还是应该先读题目。大家当然还是应该好好考虑下，这个题目怎么来攻击比较好？自己先思考吧，这个题目结论是什么？前提是什么？证据是什么？都是谁的证据。应该攻击哪些点？这些点的重要性排列是什么样子的？
当然不得不说，这个题目拿到手，还是感觉比较棘手的，原因就在于他可攻击的点很多，感觉文章很乱。但是在这个地方，大家应该高兴才是，因为越乱的文章，越能写出自己的水平。
======================================================================
我同学认为结论是：
The author concludes that the ancient Kalinese(K) artists used molds of actual bodies, not sculpting tools and techniques to create status because archeologists have recently discovered molds of human heads and hands on Kali.
给出的是这样的攻击顺序：
First of all, the precondition of the conclusion that the discovery of molds of human heads and hands does not validate the assumption that the ancient Kalinese(K) artists used molds of actual bodies, not sculpting tools and techniques to create status.
Secondly, the author concludes that since molds could only be used for life-size sculptures Kalinese miniature statues were abstract and entirely different in style too hastily.
In the third place, based on the fact that few ancient Kalinese sculpting tools have been found the author infers that the ancient Kalinese(K) artists did not use sculpting tools and techniques to create status.
如果说你找到的点和我同学的差不多，那么很显然，你的思维很混乱。你找不到，或者没找清楚整个文章的逻辑链。不管什么文章，都是存在内在逻辑链的，即便有的时候他的逻辑链会有所缺失，但是只要我们能补上，就一定能还原出作者的本来的写作思路和意图。
只要你觉得这个题目很乱，你分析不清楚，那你就理由听下我宣传的论调。因为我说，我能帮你理解清楚！！！
=====================================================================
首先我要指出，逻辑链这个东西，是个主观的东西。所以一个文章，也许你和别人找的不一样，但是只要你的逻辑链能言之成理那就可以。当然，作为作者，他肯定有他的写作逻辑链，我们最大的期望，就是找到他的逻辑链。但是事实上，我们只能去猜测可能性比较大的作者逻辑链。所以，如果有朋友对我的观点不能苟同，没有关系。只要你们的能说的通也可以。而我的，至少我现在觉得是能说的通的。
我的观点如下：（我找寻的方法，依然从结论出发，先确定结论，再确定得到结论的原因或者前提，再一步步推）
首先是这个地方的结论，这个文章的结论到底是什么？是那个有conclude的那句，还是结尾的那句，或者这2个都是。如果两个都是那么哪个是主结论？
下面是我对整个文章逻辑链的梳理：
第一层次：
结论：收藏家应该可以估计，人大小的雕象会贬值，而小型雕象会增值。
为什么人大小的雕象会贬值？因为是用模具做的
为什么小雕象会增值？因为是用手工做的
第二层次：
为什么人大小的是模具做的？因为（1）找到了头和手的模具（2）没找到雕刻工具
为什么小雕象是手工做的？因为（1）模具只能做人大小的雕象（2）小雕象形象各异
到这里有同学肯定会问我，为什么不是那个模具的地方是作者的结论？或者说，那个地方起码是一个结论，而我给的是另一个。
那么我请问，作者说的，题目中的第一句话是什么意思？如果说，conclude那句是（主）结论，那么我为什么要说第一句话？我不说，不也一样可以么？
反过来，如果是最后句话，那第一句话就很有意义了，因为他确定了作者的写作意图，他是要给收藏家建议的，所以他会从收藏家的传统观点出发，开始写这个文章。
好，找到了作者的逻辑主链条，那么我们现在要做的，就是要补全作者的逻辑链，尤其是那些缺失的，但是又非常重要的部分。
什么部分最重要，那就是隐含的前提。
“结论：收藏家应该可以估计，人大小的雕象会贬值，而小型雕象会增值。”的隐含前提是什么？前提就是大雕象是模具做的，小雕象是手工刻的？不单单是这个！更重要的前提是，“手工独个雕刻的”比“模具成批制作的”要更加值钱！！！这个理论在我们今天也许是个common sense的东西，但是在古物上面是不是能用就值得怀疑了。
当然如果你愿意，你可以继续找逻辑链中隐含的内容，不过我们是分了层次的。所以对第二层次的寻找，并不是我们的主要工作。如果你愿意你可以找到，为什么作者会用“小雕象形象各异”来证明“小雕象是手工做的”，隐含的意思是“因为如果用模具做的话，那么他们中的很多应该都是一样的。”如果是这样，那么作者也可以说假设了“雕象要么是手工雕刻的，要么是模具做的”，其实完全也有可能，部分做模具，部分雕刻的啊。以及其他的一些前提。（具体参考后文）
最大的问题，我已经帮大家找出来了。其他的小问题，大家可以自由攻击。
=====================================================================
为了让文章更有逻辑性，我提供自己想写的文章给大家参考下。在这里我强调的是第一段的写作，因为第一段表面的形式是，你告诉别人这个文章的结论是什么，证据是什么。但是实质是，你必须告诉别人你读这个文章读出来的逻辑链是什么。为了方便大家阅读，我都用中文书写
第一段：
作者的结论是让收藏家相信，K岛的大雕象将会贬值而小雕象会升值。作者试图向我们表明，大雕象是由模具制作的，而小雕象是用手工雕刻的。为此举了一些证据来证明他的观点。但是这个文章有很多的逻辑问题。
你看，我们必须在第一段表明清楚，你看出来的作者的结论是什么，支持结论的前提，或者说得到结论的原因是什么？也就是说，你需要把你认为的，文章第一逻辑层次的东西，清晰的展现在读者的眼前。这些地方，尽量用文章原话。至于之后一些第二层次的证据，个人觉得没有必要在第一段详细的说，因为第一，这些证据不是最重要的；其次，他们比较琐碎要写的话，很长。再次，你在下面段攻击的时候，必然会复述这样的证据。
考虑到时间的限制，个人认为没有必要花过多时间和字数在第一段上。当然我知道有的同学喜欢字多，总以为字多分就高，于是在第一段写很多，很详细。因为他们想，下面写到的时候就可以paste，但是我个人觉得这样的做法只是虚假繁荣。给你自己的感觉字数不少，但是实质的内容却不见得很多。
攻击第一段：最强攻击，釜底抽薪！！！批的他体无完肤！！！
即便承认作者的关于“大雕象是模具做的”“小雕象是雕刻出的”的观点，作者的结论依然基于一个未经证实的前提：“手工雕刻做的比模具做的古物雕象更有价值”。在古物雕象里面完全可能并不是依靠这个标准，或者说至少不是唯一依靠这个标准来判断价值的。他们必然还有考虑其他很多因素，比如这类雕象的存世数量，他们本身的艺术水平，以及他们的完整程度，等等这样的因素。另外即便说，大雕象可能因为是模具制作的，所以价格下降。但是小雕象并不是从考古发现后才被认为手工制造的，为什么之后他会涨价呢？作者应该提供其他的证据来支持这一说法。
攻击第二段：攻击第二层次中的大雕象，即——大雕象是模具做的。
作者关于“大雕象是模具做的”这个观点是值得怀疑的。
1． 没有任何证据表明，发掘出来的模具，能match存世的大雕象。所以完全有可能，这个是K岛另个文明时期的模具，与现在的那些大雕象没有任何关系。
2． 即便发现的模具真是用于大雕象，也没有证据表明，大雕象只是靠模具制作的。因为只找到了手和头的模具，所以我们完全有理由相信，其他的一些身体部分，是用手工雕刻完成的。并且限于当时的技术水平，手和头的模具，很有可能只能用于初步的成型，而进一步细化很有可能也是靠人工雕刻完成的。
攻击第三段：攻击第二层次中的小雕象，即——小雕象是人工雕刻的
作者关于“小雕象是人工雕刻的”这个观点也是值得怀疑的。
即便如今找到的模型不能用来做小雕象，但是这并不能说一定不存在能做小雕象的模型啊。更何况这样的模型相对于大模型来说更容易制作。很有可能的确存在过这样的模型，只是因为某些原因已经损毁了，或者至今仍然没有被找到。
攻击第四段：指出作者搬起石头砸自己的脚！！！
作者关于“没有雕刻工具”的证据，削弱了文章的说服力，应该避免。虽然，作者想用这个证据来证明，大雕象不是用雕刻工具做的，但是我们同样可以因为这个原因来怀疑小雕象也不是用雕刻工具做的。
结尾段：
所以，为了巩固作者的论述，他应该提供一些更详细，并且有说服力的证据。
======================================================================
这个是我写的提纲，大家没必要照着我的写，只是给大家一个参考。
我的提纲里面，只有这么几个原则：
1． 从攻击力最强的地方开始
2． 争取在段首就能给出自己的逻辑判断，要能一针见血的指出作者的问题
3． 找一个点，反过来说明作者如何论证才能加强效果，而不总是一直攻击到底
======================================================================
至于如何来评价argument的好坏，以及其他关于argument我的论述，大家可以参看我的老文。
1 arguement就应该这样写！！！
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=412534&extra=page%3D1%26filter%3Dtype%26typeid%3D100&page=1
2 arguement就应该这样写(二)！！！
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=416323&extra=page%3D1%26filter%3Dtype%26typeid%3D100
感谢大家看完这么长的文章，但是要知道我写的更辛苦。嘿嘿~~~
希望大家有所收获。
[ 本帖最后由 raccoon 于 2006-3-4 03:13 编辑 ] 沙发~~! LZ不容易~等offer的时候还能心平气和的写东西,
不错不错~~!:)
谢谢你写的东西~~很受教!
祝offer 多多~~:p 很感谢 后天就要考了希望能用上 佩服！现在才发现自己有很多误区 太精彩了,看了楼主的前两片分析论,我就大受启发了,已经把别人的提纲扔一边去了, 凭自己的逻辑能力分析,就是ARGU新主张~~! 但是在有限的时间内要做到象lz一样分析的如此透彻,还真的不是十分容易啊... LZ辛苦了
这篇文章逻辑思路感觉清晰了不少 LZ辛苦了
这篇文章逻辑思路感觉清晰了不少 顶啊！ 我有个疑问
把大前提放在正文最后可以吗 \
先把小前提批驳了 然后让步 一层一层地深入
比如先批 大雕像是模具做的
再批 小雕像是雕刻的
让步 即使作者可以证明上述属实 再批价值与模具的关系
个人觉得这样看起来逻辑条理更加清晰 顶啊!
太感谢楼主了!
每次看你的文章我都觉得受益匪浅啊,但是自己实际应用的时候还是感觉很难.
我得努力了!!! 1，搂主的argument分析有独到见解，受益匪浅，我现在基本上是按照你这套分析思路，改变了以往只攻击论据，不攻击论证的毛病。
2，建议斑竹加“精”！ 不过我研究了一下ETS的6篇6分argument范文，他们攻击顺序也很难按搂主的思路展开，如果有空的话，恳请搂主按照你的思路仔细点评一下这篇范文：
1------Topic: Roller-skating
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller-skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.
SAMPLE-1 (score 6)
The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is the intent of these products to either provent accidents from occuring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur. However, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other (and potentially more significant) causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear.
First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear - preventative gear (such as light reflecting material) and protective gear (such as helmets). Preventative gear is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the "other" is a responsible and caring individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention. Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by an other, the skater or some force of nature. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial.
The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not. If is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution and repsonsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself. Also, the statistic above is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are relatively dangerous places to skate in the first place. People who are generally more safety conscious (and therefore more likely to wear gear) may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards.
The statistic also goes not differentiate between severity of injuries. The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries. This is certainly not the case. Also, given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and weekends (when doctors' offices are closed), skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment.
Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality (and presumably more expensive) gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear. For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same preventative benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating. Before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by individual pieces of gear would be helpful.
The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and potentially saves lives. Before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be made in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the benefits are needed. After all, a false confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all.
COMMENTARY
This outstanding response demonstrates the writer's insightful analytical skills. The introduction, which notes that adopting the topic's fallacious reasoning could ".inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear," is followed by a comprehensive examination of each of the argument's root flaws. Specifically, the writer exposes several points that undermine the argument:
-- that preventive and protective gear are not the same
-- that skaters who wear gear may be less prone to accidents because
they are, by nature, more responsible and cautious
-- that the statistics do not differentiate by the severity of the
injuries
-- that gear may not need to be high-quality to be beneficial
The discussion is smoothly and logically organized, and each point is thoroughly and cogently developed. In addition, the writing is succinct, economical and error-free. Sentences are varied and complex, and diction is expressive and precise.
In sum, this essay exemplifies the very top of the 6 range described in the scoring guide. If the writer had been less eloquent or provided fewer reasons to refute the argument, the essay could still have been scored 6. 谢谢涣熊，真是个爱思考的好人哪~~
收益菲浅啊 原帖由 chaos 于 2006-3-4 11:28 发表
我有个疑问
把大前提放在正文最后可以吗 \
先把小前提批驳了 然后让步 一层一层地深入
比如先批 大雕像是模具做的
再批 小雕像是雕刻的
让步 即使作者可以证明上述属实 再批价值与模具的关系
...
恩那，我也是这么想的，一步一步地让下来似乎感觉更顺一点呢。。