无背景假设是否可以批驳? --有关racoon的argument就该这样写(二)的再思考
一直以来对于argument的思考都有一个螺旋上升的过程，时间越长，觉得自己积累的想法越多，一直憋着，不知对错，不吐不快。所谓无背景前提，就是ARGUMENT题目上来二话不说来个事实陈述句，有合理的有不合理的，但共同特点是作者没有提供任何论据给它，它而由于是事实陈述而不是判断，所以不需要任何论据。
这次想写的话题是这个，但启发点确是一篇很经典的帖子——《racoon的argument就该这样写(二)》是我在准备GRE AW的起始阶段接触的最震撼的三篇文章之一（另两篇是seven_teen的非牛人和imong的追星剑特寻……姑且算一篇文章吧），几乎颠覆了之前在新东方上课和自己埋头写提纲对ARGUMENT产生的认识。
帖子地址如下：
argument就应该这样写(二)！！！
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-416323-1-1.html
(吐槽：发现标题的argument居然拼错了，这么经典的帖子居然……orz)
当然有关这个帖子在震撼之余产生疑惑也是必然的，GTER有关argument到底该怎么写的讨论不止一次两次，其中最经典的应该是下面这个帖子：
Argument17: The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.
'Walnut Grove's town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ—which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks—has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance.'
"arguement就应该这样写(二)！！！"吗？
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=533374&extra=&page=1
可以从当时我的回贴看出那时我对racoon的批驳论还是非常佩服和信任的。的确一道argument一共就没几个句子，两个句子占去了1/3的篇幅，如果它没有漏洞给人批，实在让人太不爽了，就好象买了块排骨基本看不见肉一样。
在racoon的文章中，很明确地把第一句的内容定义为“大前提”。
所以问题就自然变成了针对“前提能否批驳”的讨论。当然Argument17的前提到底是不是无背景前提，我们稍后讨论。
有关无背景的前提，我一向主张不宜讨论，具体的理由写在如下两个帖子里：
AW进阶手册: 合理推断, 强化论证——挑战Argument完美逻辑
有关ARGUMENT中的无背景SURVEY要不要批
虽然官方范文中的确出现了对无背景前提（survey）的批判，但从合理性角度我却不以为这个方法很可行，因为无背景假设的批驳过于模版化，说出来就是：作者没有提供足够的证据说明这个事情可能，所以它可能是错的，很可能blahblahblah，套到survey上更甚，基本千人一面。
当然有人说，argument都是千人一面，大家写出来都是这些问题。这没错，但即便这样也不是所有人都能拿高分的，为什么？因为就算都长一个模样还有人气质好点有人表情差点，同样的错误同样的批驳手段，也会有好有坏。
所以问题就从一个“能否”的是非判断变成了一个“好不好”的效率判断。那么批驳前提的效率，到底高不好呢？
之前先来复习下argument的写作要求（天使斑斑口头禅“官方的，才是最好的”炸）：
.... it requires you to critique a given argument by discussing how well reasoned you find it. You will need to consider the logical soundness of the argument rather than to agree or disagree with the position it presents....
这里说的reasoned，然后是logical soundness，可以再参阅下MW对reason的解释：
1archaic : to justify or support with reasons
2: to persuade or influence by the use of reason
3: to discover, formulate, or conclude by the use of reason <a carefully reasoned analysis>
简言之就是use reasons。显然前提本身没有被reasoned，那么就只能作为reason了。那么以argument17为例，作者有说“因为政府因为钱就把EZ给废了，所以他们是错的”么？
... requires you to critique someone else's argument by assessing its claims and evaluating the evidence it provides...
同样，claims和evidence，前提应该算作哪一个？
如果是claims的话，那么应该是判断性质的陈述句，但无论据的陈述句，该如何置疑？
如果是evidence的话，自然要判断它是否能够支持claims，但如果作者压根没拿它来支持claims，又该如何evaluate？
这样一来对于前提的批驳实际成为了一个进退两难的问题，进，需要扩大攻击面积，将攻击范围从题目扩展到常识，退，则无法形成有力论述，成为套话空话。
有意思的是前两天看到修锐老师在BLOG上转载了racoon的帖子，引言里提到“AW不光是考逻辑，更是考常识”。从上面的分析也能知道，退不成，那就只有进。
先不说Argument17， 说说我以前提到的太阳黑子引发感冒Argument180
180.The following appeared in an article in the health section of a newspaper.
"According to the available medical records, the six worst worldwide flu epidemics during the past 300 years occurred in 1729, 1830, 1918, 1957, 1968, and 1977. These were all years with heavy sunspot activity — that is, years when the Earth received significantly more solar energy than in normal years. People at particular risk for the flu should therefore avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun."
Argument180的那句“These were all years with heavy sunspot activity — that is, years when the Earth received significantly more solar energy than in normal years”是典型的无背景前提，作为解释来得出人们要避免被晒的结论。如果没有常识则无法对此进行批驳，即太阳黑子活跃年会出现辐射之外的其它现象。由此可以看出无背景前提如果具体到直接跟常识相关，则可以批判，而且比较容易批。
再回到Argument17。严格来说17的头两句话不是完全的没有背景。
个人认为在一开始的两个帖子作出的比方都不恰当（即racoon的政府老大请EZ老板吃饭和gstrand的辩论赛），因为这题题头那句里已经说明了，说话的人是(who write) a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper。至于信到底是谁写的，我们不知道。
所以racoon的以TC主任的口吻去说话是不合适的，因为TC主任显然知道真正原因，而写信的好象是EZ的老板，这样其实题目和作者就处于了信息不对等且利益有瓜葛的立场上，属于题目以外的信息并且影响了题目的解读，因此不应被考虑进去。而gstrand的G友立场也不合理，因为市民不知道信息而G友知道，G友又耍无赖不说，同样是正反双方信息不对等且将题外因素代入题目。
真实的情况是，到底写信的人知道不知道真实情况我们不知道，我们可以说他写的第一句没有依据，但我们也没有证据说他写的就是假的或者他知道真实原因而不说出来。从这点而言，它跟无背景前提是一样的。
当然有人会提到我们常见的对错误因果的它因论证，同样我们不知道真实原因是什么，只能猜测。但别忘了，错误因果是一个完整的论述过程，出现在题目中的格式是：A之后发生了B（事实/evidence），所以A是B的原因（作者结论/claims）。但在这里，第一句的格式是：因为A所以B。
这种情况下作者没有直接的逻辑错误，如果置疑这个前提，结果就是置疑作者在撒谎或者作者不知道真实情况，但我们没有任何证据，换言之，我们写出的Argument会犯跟题目同样的错误，如果作者可以反驳，则可以说the author provides no evidence...
的确，提出无论据的猜测可以置疑作者观点，这点我在AW进阶手册: 合理推断, 强化论证——挑战Argument完美逻辑中也没有否认，但前提是提供大量的可能性以增加自己的立场可靠度。但无背景的前提由于可用条件甚少所以能提出的可能性也比较少，而且这种论证方法另一个缺点是占用篇幅太大——这也是我对于“无背景前提是否可以批驳”这个话题目前最支持的看法：逻辑错误优先，论据优先，没的说了再说前提。
与racoon观点不同，基于以上论证我认为Argument17的重点在作者提出的三个论据，事实上作者也不会吃饱了撑的拿三个无关痛痒的论据出来让人揍，既然拿出来肯定有错误，而且是很明显的错误，这题的破题关键是如何充分有效的把三个论据批透。看过官方范文应该知道，三个论据未必只有三个攻击点，有时候可能会更多（最典型的就是轮滑装备造成受伤更多那篇）。而个人经验是所以想在有限的篇幅内把三个论据批透是很难的，更别说再去说前提，何况这题其实在最后还存在结论可行性的常识背景问题。
以下贴一篇我第二次写作此题时的习作，我自认为在AWer中写作速度算快的，即便这样，第二次写在写了前提的时候还是难以把三个论据吃透，也因此使对前提的批驳显得得不偿失了：
WORDS: 621 TIME: 0:30:00 DATE: 2006-11-28
In this argument, the author first asserts Walnut Grove's town council switches from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste after receiving the former one's services for 10 years, since EZ raised its monthly fee for $500 recently. In this sense, he claims that the council's choice is wrong and suggests they remain the deal with EZ Disposal. To prove EZ's advantages, the author states three facts, including EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects once; EZ has ordered additionally trucks to their fleet, which now is as large as ABC's; EZ is supposed to provide exceptional service according to a recent survey. However, all these facts are insufficient to prove that EZ is a better choice, so well as the precise of this argument is not well testified. A careful check will show us these critical flaws.
Fundamentally, the author makes his suggestion on a statement that the council changed its waste diposer just for its raised fee, and then makes his efforts to prove this fee is worthy. But as we know, the charge is not the only reason for a council to chose its waste disposer, since many other reasons, such as methods of disposing, social effects, company's reputation and so forth. Without excluding these elements which can be considered, we can properly suspect that ABC waste is taking a more developed way for trashing, causing less air pollution and noises, or it may have a better history in some other cities where the situation is similar to Walnut Grove's. Further investigation about the reasons of the council's decision should be made or it will be useless even the charge of EZ is proved to be worthy.
Assuming the raised fee is the only reason, and then it comes to the EZ's advantage as the only question: whether its $500 raise is worthy? The author claims it is and states three facts. However, none of they is not detailed in a effective way to make them sound.
Firstly, it is said that EZ collects trash twice a week but ABC just collects once. Although the frequency can tell some of a company's effectiveness, it cannot stand for all. Will the EZ collect more carefully and totally than ABC? Maybe they collect twice just because they cannot collect all the trash once and these twice are closed in time to each other. Such possibilities can cause the frequency useless to assess EZ's service.
Secondly, EZ has ordered additional trucks as stated, but ABC's situation is not detailed. The author tries to mislead us to an illusion that EZ will have more trucks than ABC since they originally have the same but EZ ordered more. Has ABC also ordered new trucks? We don't know. Even EZ will have more trucks than ABC, how large are these trucks? Can they devote more than ABC's fleet? Are they necessary? All of these questions are left to be answered.
Thirdly, a survey is cited to prove that EZ provides exceptional service, stating 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey chose 'satisfied' as their answer. But this evidence is insufficient. Also, ABC's service is not surveyed and we cannot make comparison. What sense can 80 percent make? Is this really a high rate? Maybe ABC can have even more satisfied respondents or these citizens did not care much about their waste disposer. Such considerations make the survey insufficient to testify EZ's "exceptional service".
To sum up, this argument is based on a hasty assertion as precise, and proves no significant evidence. To make his suggestion sounder, the author need to make sure that the financial issue is the only consideration for the council's decision, as well as to provide more evidence to convince us that pay $500 a month is worthy.
可以看到我在开头花了大量的时间把前提在题目中的地位点出来，然后去批驳这个前提，造成的结果就是三个论据都只有时间写出短短两三句话，很多地方都没有深入也没提供论证依据。如果能精简对前提的描述，则三个点都可以说的很透，同时还可以说发展观点，比如金钱变更可能造成了EZ在TC人印象的变差，TC的budget只有那么钱涨个500就算服务好也买不起——另外就是这题最关键的问题：其实三个论据没有定量证明那500刀多出来的是值得的，即使三个论据都能证明EZ服务好，这点服务值不值500刀也是个问题，毕竟垃圾处理是件有就可以的事情，如果不是情况特别紧急没必要为之增加投入。从这点来说第一话并不是一点可以批驳的信息都没提供。
当然这一系列说法都是建立在“攻击其它点可以更好地反驳题目”上的，有些难题，比如Argument50（彗星造大海）是建立在一系列无论据的前提（假设）基础上的，不批它就基本没的批，那种情况还是批的好。总之是需要根据题目进行取舍，依据自己的写作能力加以把握，慎重批驳，尽量避免。
最后说明，我的所有看法都是主观的，基于我个人对Argument的认识，写出来希望与各位讨论，也希望各位板油选择性吸取，依靠自己的逻辑辨认能力对观点进行筛选，从而帮助自己的写作。
[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2008-3-9 10:03 编辑 ] 很受益 恩，我昨天也在总结自己的经验，想起2月看来修锐issue中引用的文章，再看了imong的：[周年征文]再论Argument的展开和组织：实例范文详细点评！和使徒同学的三无survey批判问题以后，也有了一些自己的关于argu的想法
这里不能详细说了，简而言之就是认为ets想让我们做的事是批驳论证过程和论证思路，个人以为批论证比批前提好，如argu45 北极鹿那篇，批“北极鹿是不是有迁徙的习惯”，就不如批“基于这个观点，依然得不到最后结果”，这才批到了“逻辑的失误”。
但有些前提能不能批，我昨天晚上一直没想清楚，因为范文里面就是批过，如引用imong里面的一篇
TEST 1: ARGUMENT TOPIC
The country Myria, which charges fees for the use of national parks, reports little evidence of environmental damage. This strongly suggests that for the country Illium, the best way to preserve public lands is to charge people more money when they are using national parks and wilderness areas for activities with heavy environmental impact. By collecting fees from people who overuse public lands, Illium will help preserve those lands for present and future generations.
下面是作者的批判：
中文是imong的点评
First, just because there is a lack of evidence does not preclude the fact that environmental damage may in fact be occurring. 提出来：这个果本身就有问题。 The individuals who are testing the area for evidence of damage may not have the proper scientific instruments or educational training necessary to detect damage that may be present. 注意这里提到的具体的反驳理由，光是maybe they failed to detect相比maybe they lack the … to successfully… 当然缺乏说服力。这也是为什么我一直强调所谓的“具体”和“细节”。In fact, certain kinds of environmental damage may not be detectable in the short term even using the most sophisticated scientific methods.这样子一个in fact更进一步提出额外的可能性 Imbalance in ecosystems, for example, may only become apparent over a long period of time. 作者仍然是不放过“certain kinds of..”，直接扔出来一个“imbalance in ecosystems”，这样子一下子把原题驳得哑口无言。没有这个“imbalance”作为“具体”，达不到这个效果。这一个段落完胜。
今天看到楼主同学认为可以批前提，但是效率不高，我基本是认同的。有些牵涉常识问题好批，有的前提是不好批的。感谢使徒同学的释疑。
这里又回到argu45 北极鹿，我后来发现如果不批前提，实在是不好写了，因为题目中前面大段都是前提，如果把猎人的报告也看成是另外一类的三无survey的话：
45.The following appeared as an editorial in a wildlife journal.
"Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic region. They search for
food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of a year.
Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on
which they feed, and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice
to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over
it.（蓝色部分为前提） Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer
populations are declining. （紫色部分认为是三无survey）Since these reports coincide with recent global
warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that
the decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable
to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea."
那么题目就只剩下”由相关性直接推出因果关系“，即：气温上升==》海平面上升==》不能迁徙，找不到食物而死。这一个逻辑问题了········第一个箭头如果认为是背景，不批，第二个箭头勉强批，只重点批其他原因导致了鹿的死亡。文章写不开啊。希望能提供思路和说明，看这篇argu的前提怎么处理········
另外·····使徒同学的打字速度太恐怖了·········
倒数第二段最后一句：
从这点来说第一话并没有一点可以批驳的信息都没提供。这句话是什么意思？是不是：从这点来说第一句话并不是一点可以批驳的信息都没有提供？
[ 本帖最后由 l5220539 于 2008-3-9 10:19 编辑 ] 猎人同学的报告不能算三无，猎人是报告者，所以他的动机、能力都可以进行批驳
这个跟17里那个不知道背景的匿名写信者情况是不一样的。
而蓝色部分的前提也存在模糊表达的问题，到底是at least some years是几年，海平面又能造成几年的分隔，鹿的迁徙周期是多久，warm enough又是多warm都可以批，另外也不是不可能变暖了以后有些岛不来不长植物也长了——这是针对前提本身的表达问题展开的攻击，即承认其事实却抓住它丢掉的细节进行攻击。
有事先出去了晚上继续讨论…… 恩。谢谢，参考使徒同学的意见之后，修改了提纲
1猎人的观察可能不正确，统计问题批，鹿的数量可能没有下降
2气温上涨多少不知，如果还可以继续结冰，则对迁徙无影响
3即使海平面上涨导致不能迁徙，也不说明鹿吃不到植物，也许气温上涨了，就不用旅行，在原地也能吃到植物
4即使不能吃到，也不能说明是这个原因导致数量下降，其他原因都可以导致这个结果（重点批，展开）
关于T180的问题
想对着题目看一下的，结果自己手头上的资料没有一本是对应的，甚至连题目也没有找到，难道是题库问题？？ ding~我也发现这个问题,P SURVEY是一个思维完备性的问题~为什么不舍得P~~ 原帖由 l5220539 于 2008-3-9 09:40 发表恩，我昨天也在总结自己的经验，想起2月看来修锐issue中引用的文章，再看了imong的：再论Argument的展开和组织：实例范文详细点评！和使徒同学的三无survey批判问题以后，也有了一些自己的关于argu的想法
这 ...
请问imong的点评是从哪里找到的？没搜到。题目是哪里的？范文没有这篇吧
回复 #8 goldin2008 的帖子
在A的精华区里面可以找到 原帖由 firhaday 于 2008-3-10 12:58 发表在A的精华区里面可以找到
找到了，多谢，这估计是老年间的范文了，莫非ETS范文也更新，换题库。呵呵：）
回复 #10 goldin2008 的帖子
A的范文没有更新过,就是这么点~别人怎么点评都是别人的思想,重要的是自己的思想 对于survey或是这种“无背景调查”之类的前提内容是否批驳，我觉得是很需要具体话题具体分析的。关键是看这些内容在题目中所起到的作用，摸索作者思路，然后再说要不要批，花多大力气批……
准备这个内容的一个帖子我也酝酿好久了，最近一定找时间整理出来，大家讨论。
回复 #12 liyue24 的帖子
其实我也想说的,我等会也整理吧~大家讨论下,哈哈 啊 天使~ 赞~~~~
页:
[1]