关于Argument论证顺序的一些感想（欢迎讨论）
看了这么一些寄托的精华，以及ets的范文，我对argu有了新的认识。ets寄给我们的那本general test practice book是有用的，认真看里面的一些对写作文的指导，于我们来说，比北美范文和猴哥都更有权威性和正确性。多认真看本书，收获会挺大的。写完这篇感想之后，再看到了staralways 同学关于Argument中理清谬误攻击顺序的入门帖，不由得感叹英雄所见略同（小自恋一下）。不过虽然思路一致，但想了想，还是把自己的感想贴了出来，希望在讨论中能进步，同时也是考完机考之后对论坛感谢之情的表达
是什么
首先，argu的论证，几位斑斑的精华里都是说要有一个驳斥的中心线，反对仅仅做驳斥的堆砌。如使徒同学的argu进阶（AW进阶手册: 合理推断, 强化论证——挑战Argument完美逻辑）一文中（本文主要不是将论证顺序），无夏同学回帖中提到了
“即使是相同类型的问题,例如缺乏他因考虑,放置在不同的文章,不同的位置,也有不同的作用.这些作用或强或弱,或深或浅,全看它如何在整个passage中与其他的条件,假设和结论构成起来.如此,按怎样的顺序提出来,用怎样的方式提出来,用它来说明谁最一击即中戳人软肋,是不能一概而论的.更无法一概而用的.僵化的排列组合只能使你的minds显得更加零乱和长满小辫子,而试图去找到一条线,找到一个合理的方法和角度,串起那些你可以说通顺的丝丝相扣的逻辑错误,足以让你完满的结束一次批判.”
这个见解我非常同意，同时我也说一个自己看精华贴的心得
对于有些精华，不光只看文章主体，后面的很多回帖是很有水平的，有的是对文章的补充，有的是对文章的进一步做具体例子的说明。更有的精华，主要是通过讨论完成的，如关于红肉的那篇精华，有意义的内容是贯彻整个帖子的讨论。
为什么
继续接着说论证顺序。practice book上有这样的指导语句(在“form your response”部分)“You might want to organize your critique around the organization of the argument itself, discussing the argument line by line. Or you might want to first point out a central questionable assumption and then move on to discuss related flaws in the argument's line of reasoning.”
也就是说，可以按argu本身的顺序驳斥，也可以先提出中心错误然后再驳斥其他。当然，ets也指出了“What matters is not the form the response takes, but how insightfully you analyze the argument and how articulately you communicate your analysis to academic readers within the context of the task.”
但是，如果写argu的时候能用某些方法串起你的每一段，能用较好的衔接词承上启下，对argu的写作应该是有帮助的。因为argu的评分标准里面，5和6分的要求里面有这样的话
6分：“develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions”
5分：“develops ideas clearly, organizes them logically, and connects them with appropriate transitions”
这里都提到了承接，转接，说明这是一个评分点。那么如何把文章串起来，使得不仅做到每段都论述有理有据，而且段和段之间也有逻辑上的承接呢？这就是之前提到的中心线问题。中心线有很多构成法。经过观察，我发现有些argu的题目很方便使用一种方法来驳斥，那就是让步驳斥法。具体先看一片ets的范文（我没有在官方的6篇argu范文中找到这篇文章，题目也不是在题库中的）：转自imong的[周年征文]再论Argument的展开和组织：实例范文详细点评，imong点评
一篇非典型的6分argument范文。
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.
Essay Response ? Score 6
This argument is not cogent because it assumes that the stated correlation implies causation, which is not necessarily the case. 概括性起手——一点都不??隆?he argument asserts that because the country of Myria charges fees for the use of national parks, there is little evidence of environmental damage. But there are several reasons why one cannot assume that the lack of evidence of environmental damage is a result of the fact that individuals are charged to use these parks.提出来“因果”不成立。另外，看看人家的开头多简单。再次证明，新东方经典八婆开头只有在一篇6分范文里出现过——而且还立刻被commentary骂。各位自己好好想想吧。
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。
Second, even if we concede that there is in fact negligible amounts of environmental damage,小让一步 this does not necessarily mean that by collecting money from individuals who are using the parks one can use these funds to maintain the land for future generations. An alternative explanation may be that because the country charges a fee to use the national parks, people are less inclined to use the parks. It then stands to reason that with fewer people in the parks, there will be less of a detrimental impact on the environment. 这里这一段似乎有点晦涩，不过我的理解是作者重点在于通过指出“人少了”和“捞钱了”的差异，批驳原题的最后一句by collecting fees… help preserve。In addition, even if people are willing to pay the fee, the funds collected may be insufficient to cover the costs of maintaining and preserving the parkland. 再进一步指出和“钱”实际上没太大关系。
Finally, even if we accept that the situation in Myria is successful in that country, we cannot assume that this same scenario will work in Illium.再让一步，拿出杀手锏——经典错误：地区差异。看看人家怎么展开的： There are a myriad of variables that can contribute to the success of this type of environmental maintenance and restoration program.跟上面一样：光这一句解决不了问题。我们很多人的argument只是知道写到这一句，就是死活不知道再往下来上一句这个分就上去了（不知道是不是都是因为给新东方那堆逻辑名词给教的）： Pre-existing and uncontrollable environmental conditions 到这里其实都还是泛泛而谈such as the rate of erosion and the overall climate may cause damage that cannot be rectified by monetary solutions. 好，就要看这里：such as一出，立马摆平。 In addition, cultural norms regarding how one views his or her responsibility and role 更夸张了，连cultural norm都拽出来了 in terms of preserving the environment may influence the intensity of environmental damage that may be sustained. 看了这段，见识了什么叫做“具体”，什么叫做“细节”了吗？人家就是要拿实际分析，拿这种的“实例”来说明问题。“挑”逻辑错误在那里纸上谈兵并不难，可是“写”AW可是要给“说”明白的。
Thus, although the strategy of charging citizens of Myria for the use of its parks in order to collect funds for any restoration that may be required may be successful in Myria, this reality alone does not conclusively suggest that such a strategy would be effective in Illium or any other country. 结语落在了最后一段的论调上。
之所以说这篇文章是“非典型”6分范文，是因为这篇文章和目前所有其他6分范文相比有至少两点不同：第一，采用了first, second, finally这样的展开，这样子结构的6分范文只有这一篇；第二，全文的展开并不是总分总的样式，而是像流线一样，最开始的起手句其实算不上一个强的thesis，开头段的最后两句是跟body1相关的，结尾段和body3相关，这个样子的文章少见，而这次在6分文章里出现了。
这两点给我的启示就是：第一，放心大胆使用first, second, finally这样的文章结构，如果你觉得这样本身就方便加习惯的话。同时必须指出，别以为光first一下子整个transition的功夫就够了，看看人家里面的“承接”很注意的，一会儿一个“in fact”一会儿一个“it then stands”承上启下做得很到位，我们有些人的文章倒好，几个干巴巴的firstly secondly thirdly往那里一扔，剩下什么都没有了——老是同一个毛病，形式的东西学得挺快，实质的东西半天也没长进，自己也不多琢磨琢磨。第二，pp3说明文件里面也说过，例如写几段怎么展开完全为自己文章服务，人家是“experienced reader透过各种各样的题材看你的内容”，就我的经验而言这样子少见的“顺序”都拿到6分的话，大可放心不要成天在乎形式上的东西，把你文章核心的“内容”，你的“分析”做到位，最基本的顺承布局做到（这可不是说顺承布局的“形式”），分就有了。
同时这篇文章和其他6分范文的共同特点：简洁明了，实例清晰有力。后者进一步证实我的看法，即一定要会用这种“具体”“实例”来说明问题，要不然文章永远是干巴巴喊口号纸上谈兵逻辑碰逻辑。
这篇文章是怎么拿到6分的，其实还真有一番滋味值得琢磨。
怎么做：
这篇文章以及点评都值得琢磨，这里我只谈关于让步攻击的方面。继续接着说如何让步攻击：
题目的错误是基于一个没有证据的结果（环境破坏发生，environmental damage may in fact be occurring.），然后作出了一系列错误的推导（集资可以保护土地，维持下一代人使用by collecting money from individuals who are using the parks one can use these funds to maintain the land for future generations；相同的政策可以应用到本地， this same scenario will work in Illium）。
而作者的攻击就是首先攻击结果（环境破坏不一定发生），然后让步（即使发生，集资也不一定有用，钱不一定起作用）再让步（即使有用，对本地不一定适用）
具体方法是这样。如第二段开头：Second, even if we concede that there is in fact negligible amounts of environmental damage,小让一步 this does not necessarily mean that by collecting money from individuals who are using the parks one can use these funds to maintain the land for future generations.
让步承认第一段论证，转个口气，开始对第二个错误进行攻击，开始第二段论证。
第三段开头：Finally, even if we accept that the situation in Myria is successful in that country, we cannot assume that this same scenario will work in Illium.
继续让步，然后攻击第三个错误
文章通过让步攻击，形成了每个攻击点之间的逻辑连接。
能这么驳斥的题目一般有这样的特点：
1 基于一个错误，然后从该错误出发，作出一个推断（同样不能证明），再作推断（依然不能被证明）来论证题目作者的结论。
2 由几个并列的错误推出结论，这些错误之间是“与”逻辑关系，即" if A and B, then C"（学过一点计算机语言的同学应该能理解这个 if语句的执行方法：A条件和B条件同时正确，才能执行C）。A和B最好有不同种类错误
相对应的攻击方法就是
1 驳斥大基础，让步，驳斥小基础，让步，驳斥第三基础，（让步，驳斥结论，这个和第三基础可以做个取舍）
2 驳斥A，让步，驳斥B，让步，驳斥结论
举例子
情况1
argument 118
The following appeared in a newsletter from a national astronomy
association.
"Various sources are predicting higher-than-average temperatures across
the country next winter, including in Sun City, the traditional location
of our yearly winter conference. Higher winter temperatures are sure to
result in higher-than-usual tourism in Sun City, a location already known
for its attractive beaches and good weather. Hotels will have fewer rooms
available, transportation will be more difficult to reserve, and public
places such as parks and restaurants will be more crowded. These
conditions are likely to significantly reduce attendance at the
conference. We should therefore move our conference to a city less popular
with winter tourists."
驳斥方法:（仅供参考）
1 首先，不一定高温，预测不权威，无数据（该驳斥如果认为是客观前提，可改为驳斥高温不一定导致冬季游客增加）；
2 让步，即使高温（即使人多），不一定导致客房减少，交通问题，公共场所拥挤；
3 再让步，即使以上现象都发生，也不一定导致到会人数减少（或者即使发生，改到别的城市举行不一定是恰当方法）
再举例：
67.The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a newspaper serving
the villages of Castorville and Polluxton.
"Both the villages of Castorville and Polluxton have experienced sharp
declines in the numbers of residents who pay property taxes. To save money
and improve service, the two villages recently merged their once separate
garbage collection departments into a single department located in
Castorville, and the new department has reported few complaints about its
service. Last year the library in Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users
than during the previous year. It follows that we should now further
economize and improve service, as we did with garbage collection, by
closing the library in Polluxton and using the library in Castorville to
serve both villages."
驳斥方法:（仅供参考）
1 首先，垃圾场合并不一定成功，投诉少不代表没有问题；
2 让步，即使垃圾场成功合并，也不代表图书馆能成功合并，错误类比；
3 再让步，即使能成功合并，也不一定要合并Polluxton的那个，使用人数和使用率不是一个概念，使用率少但是可能人数多，需求 不小
例子3
25.The following appeared in a memo from the mayor of the town of
Hopewell.
"Two years ago, the town of Ocean View built a new municipal golf course
and resort hotel. During the past two years, tourism in Ocean View has
increased, new businesses have opened there, and Ocean View's tax revenues
have risen by 30 percent. The best way to improve Hopewell's economy, and
generate additional tax revenues, is to build a golf course and resort
hotel similar to those in Ocean View."
驳斥方法:（仅供参考）
1 首先，OV的成功不一定是新建旅馆和高尔夫球场造成的；
2 让步，即使是的，并不证明HW这么做也能成功，地点错误类比；
3 再让步，即使能成功，没证据说明是最好办法，可能HW有更好的办法，开销少，成果大
情况2举例：
24.The following appeared in a memo from the president of Viva-Tech, a
manufacturer of high-tech medical equipment.
"In order to reduce costs, we should close some of our existing small
assembly plants and build a large central plant. Grandview would be an
ideal location for this new plant. First, of the locations that we have
considered, Grandview has the largest adult population, so that we will be
able to staff our plant quickly and easily. Second, since the average wage
earned by workers in Grandview is less than that in the other locations,
we should be able to keep production costs low. Last, as an inducement for
us to build there, Grandview's town council has offered to allow us to
operate for the first three years without paying city taxes."
驳斥方法:（仅供参考）
1 首先，最大成年人口不一定能轻易招工，员工素质不一定符合；
2 让步，招工了，收入低不代表成本低，成本影响因素太多，意味着也不适合建厂；
3 再让步，即使以上成立，但前三年免税问题比较多，以后的政策如何？还是不一定适合；（以上对于题目中的并列3个例子，用了 让步攻击串联）
4 再让步，即使适合建厂，关小厂建大厂不一定能节约成本，没证据
140.The following appeared in a report of the Committee on Faculty
Promotions and Salaries at Elm City University.
"During her seventeen years as a professor of botany, Professor Thomas has
proved herself to be well worth her annual salary of $50,000. Her classes
are among the largest at the university, demonstrating her popularity
among students. Moreover, the money she has brought to the university in
research grants has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years.
Therefore, in consideration of Professor Thomas' demonstrated teaching and
research abilities, we recommend that she receive a $10,000 raise and a
promotion to Department Chairperson; without such a raise and promotion,
we fear that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another
college."
驳斥方法:（仅供参考）
1 首先，最大班级不能证明最受欢迎，可能是师资不够，不能证明教学能力，不能证明加薪的必要；
2 让步，即使是受欢迎，带来研究资助也不代表有科研能力，也不能证明加薪必要；
3 再让步，即使两者都成立，也看不出加薪的必要
4 再让步，即使加薪，也不一定不走，同时不加薪也不一定走，没有关于教授要离开大学的信息。
注意
1 题目不光只有举出的这些错误，还有其他错误，可以攻击
2 题目的错误不一定要用让步攻击，这里只是举例作为参考，引用imong同学的话：
在比较过全部官方范文后，到底各个段落的顺序如何安排，没观察到同样的趋势，不同文章各显其能的。因此我认为，只要你的安排“有顺序”，并且做到了“smooth transition”，这方面就完全okay，不会出问题的。
3 即使让步，不一定用这个顺序让步
4 让步攻击也要看题目来分析，不要套用形式而忽略了内容上的逻辑关联，如果本身不适合让步攻击，就要用适合题目的攻击顺序， 题库中有一些本身就是难题，逻辑错误不明朗，要吃透逻辑错误再下手。如argu199就不太适合让步
5 最重要的一点就是要充分论证，fully develop每一段，继续引用imong同学的话：
人家是“experienced reader透过各种各样的题材看你的内容”
“大可放心不要成天在乎形式上的东西，把你文章核心的“内容”，你的“分析”做到位，最基本的顺承布局做到（这可不是说顺承布局的“形式”）”
imong的这些话可以说是通俗的解释了之前引用的ets practice book 的那句话：“What matters is not the form the response takes, but how insightfully you analyze the argument and how articulately you communicate your analysis to academic readers within the context of the task.”
总之，argu的核心还是分析到位。当然行文承接自然会对评分有好处。稍微设计一下论证顺序，是锦上添花。关键还是做好基本的工作。希望自己的一些认识能对部分人有帮助，这就够了。最后的取舍权完全在大家手上
欢迎大家对我的这些认识进行讨论和辩驳。跟贴和PM都随时欢迎。 原创的好文章~
=================================================================================
记得使徒给过一个思路.
分析文章的论据
论据1,推论1
论据2,推论2......
然后整理攻击顺序会更加的顺畅
如果LZ还有兴趣的话不妨把你举的例子按照这样的方式来分析下,然后就等于整理了全文的思路!
,比如使徒帮我分析过的A45
推论1: 鹿减少.(论据1得出)
论据1: 猎人报告.
论据2: 全球在变暖
事实前提: 鹿要迁徙
推论2: 全球变暖造成冰川融化.(论据2得出)
推论3: 冰川融化导致鹿不能迁徙(推论2得出)
结论: 鹿因为全球变暖不能迁徙而数量减少.(推论1+推论3得出)
依次进行攻击的话先是推论1, 攻击论据1不能证明推论1 (猎人报告不可靠)
然后是推论2, 攻击论据2不能证明推论2 (变暖也不一定造成冰川融化, 这里使用他因--变暖与鹿减少无关, 污染,捕猎)
然后推论3, 攻击推论2不能得出推论3 (融化也不一定不能迁徙, 可能留有通道也可能没到融点, 这里使用他因--变暖与鹿减少有关, 但不是通过作用冰川, 可能只是植物等等)
由于推论3和推论1如果都成立, 则结论自然成立, 所以这一点不容易攻击.
以上分析过程供参考. 尽量使用让步假设可以让问题都孤立出来, 这样容易攻击, 而且文章会显得比较有结构感.
其实我的感觉是不是所有文章都有那么好的论证让步顺序的,如果为了要让步而很勉强的攻击,那么文章就会写的更加的别扭~
呵呵,个人意见!!!
[ 本帖最后由 firhaday 于 2008-3-14 15:12 编辑 ]
页:
[1]