"arguement就应该这样写(二)！！！"吗？

succubiUID：2271213

看了讨论比较昏了
开始我也是按着那个隐含前提去找
发现很多时候是属于作者只是先讲了个结论，后面的论据还没有出来，如果直接推隐含前提就好像人家都还没有说理由你就把人家否定了一样的
看完找个帖子还是比较昏
还是研究范文比较好

yuqilauUID：2188694

当时就看了原来的帖子就觉得有种不太对的感觉。

现在看了lz的帖子更加坚定了原来的思路。:)

西西UID：196939

当时看到这个argument 该怎么写的文章时，我也很激动，热血沸腾的找argu的致命错误~。收获还是不小的，至少思路理的很清晰。
可是~和yaoying同样的问题，到底要不要把逻辑问题弄得那么透彻~还有究竟怎样的话算既定已知的，即使批驳了也是钻牛角尖的？不是很理解，我也有些看法，就举一篇文章为例，大家看看分析下。

33.The following report appeared in an archaeology journal.

"The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric
sites scattered over a wide area has led archaeologists to ask how the
pots were spread. Some believe the pot makers migrated to the various
sites and carried the pots along with them; others believe the pots were
spread by trade and their makers remained in one place. Now, analysis of
the bones of prehistoric human skeletons can settle the debate: high
levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are
strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after
childhood. Many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed
high levels of the metallic element. Therefore, it must be that the pots
were spread by migration, not trade."

以前的精华贴说的是：
事实A1：某种特定的金属元素会伴随在童年后迁徙的人们。
事实A2：罐子附近的许多骨头均含有某特定金属元素。
（隐含的中间结论B：罐子附近的骨头主人是迁徙而来的）
结论C：罐子是被迁徙传播的，而非贸易
(A1+A2)------>B----->C
注意到A1、A2均是事实之后，明白攻击点在arguer建立的错误的因果关系。
驳斥点如下：
1：A1+A2------>B：骨头里有着种元素的人们可能是原住民，未必经过迁徙。即便在不同sites，也很有可能在不同sites均有含有该金属元素的食物存在，使得这些原住民的骨头都含有该元素。
2：B----->C：即便这些骨头的主人都不是原住民，也无法证明这些骨头的主人同时是罐子的主人。一方面，骨头和罐子是否同时代未提供。另一方面，这些骨头很可能来自不同的、食用含有该元素的食物的地方，而这些地方很可能不是罐子的产地。人们虽然是迁徙而来的，但很可能跟罐子完全没有关系。（注意到many的用词，many意味着不是all，意味着有some不含有该元素，可以假定那些才是真正罐子主人的骨头）
3：B----->C：即便这些骨头的主人也是罐子的主人，也未必能够证明罐子是迁徙而来的。这些人的死因不详，有可能是在狩猎、远行、战争中死亡，罐子作为随身物品，也遗留在死亡处。
因此，说罐子一定随迁徙传播是草率的。

这个帖子的分析思路是：
1．如果是罐子的主人，不能说明是迁徙，可能是原主民。
2．即使不是原住民，也不能说明罐子和人有关系，可能不是罐子主人，也可能根本不是同年代的。
3．最后，即使是主人，也可能不是迁徙，而是因为战争之类的原因和罐子死在了一起。

我想要说的是：作者给了一个前提：非迁徙即交易。
之后列了很多论据之后，结论是不是交易是迁移。

文章的前提和结论存在很大的漏洞，那就是前提给出两种可能：迁移和交易，结论否定了一种，肯定了一种。这样是不是不对的？因为完全存在其他的可能：比如某种神秘的宗教仪式，要罐子和人殉葬之类的。但是我们到底要不要把这个前提当作是既定的事实呢？有点疑问，大家讨论一下。

fe3o4_chenUID：2290102

我当时看了原贴就觉得莫名其妙。哪有这样写argument的。
其实原贴的荒唐程度绝不亚于池子里任何一道题。

succubiUID：2271213

我个人觉得原贴作者的语气比较恨铁不成钢的感觉，比较激动，呵呵
后来觉得既然版主加了精华肯定还是有用的
但是不适合我，没有想到这么多人有相同的疑问
很好奇原贴的作者作文分数

最後の使徒UID：2257608

原贴是很有用的, 至少算是在开拓思维培养独立思考能力鼓励个性化的写作
当然那个两句话不可能白写必须要攻击的说法是很不合适的, 因为阿狗里有很多题都要用一两句话来介绍背景, 这种背景通常是无从下手的

wiregrassUID：2275096

up，我看了原文章之后觉得很震撼，但并不完全同意他的分析，觉得有时候太牵强了。其实看官方范文，就没觉得攻击的时候有多巧妙。

ernest81888UID：2247639

其实,大家只要分析ETS的官方范文,仔细分析,就知道该怎么写才是对的..

PrudenceUID：2286952

17. 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.(前提) But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ.（结论） 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.”（论据）

In this argument the author asserts that we should continue using EZ, with the evidence about the twice trash collection a week while ABC’s once, the trucks’ numbers and the order for new one, and a survey about its service’s satisfaction. However, a further scrutiny finds that the author has flaws, and he also fails to consider other factors leading council to choose the ABC.

To begin with, the trash in the Walnut Grove town might be not so much. In this sense, there is no need to collect twice a week. Second, EZ just ordered more trucks is not equal to that EZ has more trucks. Maybe, due to financial deficit, EZ will cancel this order. Also, it is possible that most of the 20 trucks of EZ are broken down now, while all ABC’s are working well. This is the reason why they ordered new trucks. Even if EZ will buy news trucks, again, maybe the old ones and the new ones together will be less than 20. Additionally, the survey itself is dubitable. It fails to provide more details, such as the sample and statistic. Without this details the survey is at least unconvincing.

Furthermore, even though the possibilities aforementioned are not real, and EZ is qualified. However, according to the condition of the town itself, ABC’s service is enough, and also reduces the fee of our town which can be used in other aspects such as education. Again, Maybe the council chooses the ABC not EZ because of their different way of disposing the trash-ABC adopts new method which is more beneficial for the environment, while EZ uses the old way which is endangering the environment. These are possibilities. After all, the council is represent of its people, and the fee is out of its people, so should think twice before using the money.

In sum up, the reason why council chooses ABC is not clear. However, we should do a further study to make it out, and then we can decide whether the council is wrong or not.