本帖最后由 紫陌纤尘o0 于 2010-10-11 10:04 编辑
返回首页
写在前面：在对argument的定义有一定了解以后，我们接下来从反面看看哪些因素可以使我们混淆argument的定义。通过这些分析把握阿狗中的陷阱，同时为我们写作一休提供一个指导。
What is not an argument?
We’ve just seen a description of what an argument is and why, so now may be a good time to take a look at some things which are not arguments. Premises, propositions and conclusions — the pieces of arguments — may usually be easy to spot. But arguments themselves aren’t always so easy, and very often people will offer things which they claim are arguments but definitely are not.
Too often, you will hear something like these:
1. God exists and the Bible is true!
2. Ronald Reagan was the best President we ever had!
3. Global warming is a great danger to life and civilization.
None of these are actually arguments; instead, they are all just assertions. They could be transformed into arguments if the speaker were to offer evidence in support of their claims, but until then we don’t have very much to go on. One sign that you just have a strong assertion is the use of the exclamation points.
Arguments vs. Hypotheticals
One common pseudo-argument which you will probably encounter too often is the hypothetical proposition. Consider the following examples:
4. If the Bible is accurate, Jesus was either a lunatic, a liar, or the Son of God.
5. If you want to improve the economy, you have to lower taxes.
6. If we don’t act quickly, the environment will be damaged beyond repair.
These all look like arguments and, because of that, it isn’t uncommon for them to be offered as if they were arguments. But they aren’t: they are simply conditional statements of the if-then type. The part following the if is called the antecedent and the part following the then is called the consequent.
这些例证说起来和阿狗中的很多内容是相同的，把假设的可能发生是事情当作事实，也正是我们应该批驳的地方，举个例子来看看:
170For the past five years, consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as for Gulf Coast oysters. This trend began shortly after harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. But scientists have now devised a process for killing the bacteria. Once consumers are made aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, they are likely to be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters, and greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers will follow.
就拿这道题来说，科学家现在发明了可是杀死细菌的方法，这只是可能有效的手段，还没有实施，而作者就认为它一定可以成功，而且接下来的结论都是建立在这个成功的基础之上的。所以说这不能算是有说服力的argument.
类似这样的题目有很多，都是根据一些实验调查什么的，总结出可能会有效的结果，然后就认为一定会成功，下面的所有论述都是建立在这个成功的基础之上的。这类的题在阿狗中占有很大的比重。我在分析题目时大概把所有的阿狗题目分为两大类，一类是：论据-->前提-->结论；另一类是基于前提下的论据推出结论。而这里所提到的就是第二类，我举个例子出来看看。
152The following is a letter to the head of the tourism bureau on the island of Tria.
"Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry.
In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using the beaches. Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term, it will reduce the number of people using the beaches and will raise money for replenishing the sand. Replenishing the sand, as was done to protect buildings on the nearby island of Batia, will help protect buildings along our shores, thereby reducing these buildings' risk of additional damage from severe storms. And since the areas along the shore will be more attractive as a result, the beaches will be preserved and the area's tourist industry will improve over the long term."
这里作者的假设是：海岸线的腐蚀是游客多导致的，下面的一系列措施都是基于这个前提的。那么，我就首先就要问why？确定海岸线被腐蚀的原因起码得有调查研究比较之类的吧，什么也没有提到，而我们批驳的时候正是因为它没有提供证据证明它的假设，那我们就可以举出它因来否定这个假设，比如水位上升、海浪冲击等。
In none of the three cases (#4-6) do we see the premises which would supposedly support the conclusion. If you want to try to create a genuine argument when you see such claims, you have to focus on the antecedent of the conditional and ask why it should be accepted as true. You can also ask why there is any connection between the hypothetical in the antecedent and the proposition in the consequent.
这里指出的也正是我们遇到问题时候应该去做的，为什么它是正确的？假设和结论有什么关系。这里既是在分析阿狗时要考虑的，同时也是我们写作一休要注意的问题。当我们进行一个小的argument写作的时候，提出的TS应该有确凿的证据去证明，而不是一些可能性的事情。下面的例子说得很清楚：
To better understand the difference betweeen an argument and a hypothetical proposition, look at these two very similar statements:
7. If today is Tuesday, tomorrow will be Wednesday.
8. Because today is Tuesday, tomorrow will be Wednesday.
Both of these statements express similar ideas, but the second is an argument while the first is not. In the first, we have an if-then conditional (as you can see, sometimes the then is dropped). The author is not asking readers to make any inferences from any premises because it is not being claimed that today is, in fact, Tuesday.
But statement #8 is an argument because “today is Tuesday” is being offered as a factual premise. From this claim, it is being inferred — and we are asked to accept this inference — that tomorrow is therefore Wednesday.
通过这两个例子，我们可以具体地知道hypothesis和argument的区别。前者是可以提出alternative conditions的，而后者是有factual premise。
Another type of pseudo-argument can be found in the following examples:
9. You must do your duty to God, your Creator.
10. We must stop the government from interfering with people’s private property.
11. People must make sure that international corporations don’t get too much power.
None of these are really arguments, either — in fact, they aren’t even propositions. A proposition is something which can be either true or false, and an argument is something offered to establish the truth value of the proposition. But the statements above are not like that. They are commands, and cannot be true or false — they can only be wise or unwise, justified or unjustified.
这里提供的几个例子其实是在我们的写作中常常出现这样的问题，因为中式思维逻辑跳跃，我们往往认为一些东西是作为常识来被接受的，我举个不太恰当的例子：我们必须遵照上帝的旨意。我忘记在哪里看到这么一句话了，大概是洪秀全天平天国时候的口号。这句话其实是很经不起推敲的，为什么我们要遵照上帝的旨意，谁见过上帝？上帝的旨意写的什么？但是这句话还是蛊惑了很多的善男信女。我们起码要提供一下上帝的照片吧，他老人家旨意的复印件嘛，呵呵，我邪恶了^_^而在英文逻辑写作中，确实是这样，每一个提供是论断都是要有确凿的证据的，起码要说清楚，不能认为rater什么都知道。
这里又想到一点，我们在一休写作举例子的时候，喜欢找些名人，举个XX人那么伟大怎么怎么地，然后来支持你的观点。可是你觉得XX人伟大，rater不一定知道啊，而且即便是知道你也不能认为他们知道。你应该是把这个人简单的陈述一些，他的背景，他做那件是付出了什么努力，达到了一个什么样的结果等等，不能光摆出来个人，寥寥几句就认为所有人都知道他。夸张地说一下，你就是举奥巴马是美国总统，也不能认为rater是知道的，一定要说清楚！
Arguments vs. Commands, Warnings & Suggestions
Similar to commands are warnings and suggestions, which are also not arguments:
13. You should take foreign language classes while at college.
Something that is sometimes confused with an argument is an explanation. Contrast the following two statements:
14. I am a Democrat, so I voted for the Democratic candidate.
15. She didn’t vote in the Republican primary, so she must be a Democrat.
In the first statement, no argument is being offered. It is an explanation of an already-accepted truth, that the speaker voted for the Democratic candidate. Statement #13, however, is a bit different — here, we are being asked to infer something (“she must be a Democrat”) from a premise (“She didn’t vote...”). Thus, it is an argument.
看到这两个例子，我想到一道阿狗题目：
7The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Clearview newspaper.
"In the next mayoral election, residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, rather than for Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council, because the current members are not protecting our environment. For example, during the past year the number of factories in Clearview has doubled, air pollution levels have increased, and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. If we elect Ann Green, the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved."
这道题目说应该选举Ann Green，因为他是Good Earth Coalition的成员，而接下来却没有人和与Good Earth Coalition有关的陈述。
Statements of belief and opinion are also often presented as if they were an argument. For example:
16. I think that abortion is a horrendous procedure. It violently kills a young, innocent human life and the extent of abortions in this country constitutes a new holocaust.
There is really no argument here — what we have are emotive statements rather than cognitive statements. No effort is made to establish the truth of what is said nor are they being used the establish the truth of something else. They are expressions of personal feelings. There is nothign wrong with emotive statements, of course — the point is that we must understand when we are looking at emotive statements and that they are not genuine arguments.
这里还是提到，我们看到一些论断，咋一看去没有任何的问题，那是因为在emotion方面是合情合理的，但是完全不符合逻辑。这也是我们写作中应该注意的，你写的每一句话都是逻辑论证的一部分，往往不经意就写出写看似合情合理却没有逻辑的内容，这样会大大削弱文章的说服力。
Of course, it will be common to find arguments which have both emotive and cognitive statements. Often, the statements in #16 might be combined with other statements which would constitute an actual argument, explaining why abortion is wrong or why it should be illegal. It is important to recognize this and learn how to disengage the emotional and value claims from the logical structure of an argument.
这里给出了完善那个论据的方式，而且强调应该区分感性和逻辑结构的区别。
It is easy to be distracted by language and miss what is really going on, but with practice you can avoid that. This is especially important not just when it comes to religion and politics, but especially in advertising. The entire marketing industry is dedicated to using language and symbols for the purpose of creating particular emotional and psychological responses in you, the customer.
They would rather you just spend your money than think too much about the product, and they design their advertising based on that premise. But when you learn how to set aside your emotional responses to certain words and images and get right at the logical — or illogical - heart of what is being claimed, you’ll be a much better informed and prepared consumer.
这里提到的手段其实是阿狗题目中常用到的，我们应该有个判别的能力。
228The following appeared in a newsletter from a political organization.
"In order to promote economic growth in the city, city residents should vote 'yes' on the state government's proposal to build a new expressway linking the outlying suburbs directly to the city center. A direct link to the city center will enable downtown businesses to receive deliveries more frequently, so that downtown retailers will no longer run out of stock and city manufacturers will not be affected by shortages of materials. Booming businesses will attract qualified workers from all over the state, workers who will be able to take advantage of the new expressway to commute to work in our city. In addition to these advantages, hundreds of workers will be employed to build the expressway, further stimulating the local economy!"
23A recent sales study indicated that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent over the past five years. Yet there are no currently operating city restaurants that specialize in seafood. Moreover, the majority of families in Bay City are two-income families, and a nationwide study has shown that such families eat significantly fewer home-cooked meals than they did a decade ago but at the same time express more concern about eating healthily. Therefore, a new Bay City restaurant specializing in seafood will be quite popular and profitable.
类似的看似合情合理的问题在阿狗都有很多，这里就不枚举了。通过以上的分析，我们可以认识到写作中的一些常常在不经意间忽视的问题，从而帮助我们把握逻辑。
| 
GO
发表于 2010-3-21 21:22:41
回应
发表于 2010-3-21 23:39:14
1.两三分钟的自我介绍2.本科背景如何衔接或帮助你学习硕士课程3.职业规划4.中国发展的三个方面，你对哪个最...
转发
