[技术思考] 再论Argument的论证问题---实例的应用 [复制链接]

iq28
UID：2152875

元老版主

Rank: 11

声望: 902
寄托币: 18362
注册时间: 2005-10-29
精华: 23
帖子: 1033

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-3-19 07:26:10 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

对于大家热点讨论a的论证应该怎样才算深入这个话题,
imong的三部曲给出了很好的回答.

很多人得到的结论就是需要良好地应用实例,包括反例,它因,等等.
这一点本身是没有问题的.

不过刚刚改完了今天的文章后发现,大家似乎又开始大面积地犯只学习表面的形式而不去深究内部精髓的老毛病了.
实例到底应该怎么用?
很多人甚至声称反例或者它因越多,argu的论证就越好.

一旦写作的规律被懒惰而不愿意思考的我们简化到这种程度,
后果将会是很危险的.

问题的表现形式具体有以下几种
(反面教材是从坛子里面的文章内节选的,集几个错误于一身.)

1
只顾堆彻大量实例,不注重实例的更深层细节表达.

直接看反例

topic:
Argument45
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. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. 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."

example: (鹿数量下降它因)
First of all, the arguer ignores the other possibilities that lead to the decline in the arctic deer populations.

Maybe in this area, nowdays there is a set of pollution that influence the arctic deer's life and the emvironment is entirely deteriorated, so as to that they cannot adapt on the environment even to be death. Finally the populition of artic deer reduce.

第一个反例:污染破坏了环境.
是什么污染?空气?水?食物?
怎么破坏了鹿的生态环境?它们无法适应具体的哪些变化的?
这些都是可以提及的,然而作者却只是用了pollution,entirely deteriorated, cannot adapt这些仍然不够形象的空话给说了过去.

Perhaps among the group of artic deer around, there is a severe epidemic disease that threatens the life of arctic deer.

第二个反例:流行病
到底是什么epidemic disease?流感?瘟疫?
不具体说出看了这一句话让人很没有感觉

Or perhaps local hunters kill more the arctic deer than before that result in the decrease of arctic. It also intimidate the life of arctic deer.

第三个反例:猎人的屠杀
屠杀比以前多了多少?严重到已经影响到种群的数量了么?杀掉更多的鹿的背景是什么?

So there is no conspicuous evidence to persent that the deline in arctic deer populations is mere the result of deer being unable to follow their age-ofd migration patterns across the fronzen sea.

可能大家会觉得我挑剔得比较变态,那么我们来看一下ETS的官方范文的某个段落

topic:
Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour.  Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent.  But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period.  Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.

example: (车祸它因)
However, the citizens of Forestville are failing to consider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidents after the raise in speed limit.

Such alternatives may include the fact that there are less reliable cars traveling the roads in Forestville, or that the age bracket of those in Elmsford may be more conducive to driving safely.

第一个它因:人和车的问题.F的车不可靠,E的人驾车更安全.
范文的反例到了这里,深度已经等同于上面反面教材了.
而范文之所以成为范文的原因,且看下面.

It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville than there are in Elmsford.

四个形容词, younger, inexperienced, elderly, unsafe,非常生动地就把什么是容易出事故的驾驶者形象给描绘了出来.

做到更深层次论证难吗?不难,也就多了这么4个形容词.
然而事实上大家经常就卡在上面一个部分说到了人和车的问题死活就不肯再往下进一步了,就像前面的反例一样.
从这点来说,进一步地阐述反例的detail还是很有难度的.做到的人很少

In addition, the citizens have failed to consider the geographical and physical terrain of the two different areas.

第二个它因:地形和地理差别.到这里还不够,看下面.

Perhaps Forestville's highway is in an area of more dangerous curves, sharp turns, or has many intersections or merging points where accidents are more likely to occur.

三种具体情况,dangerous curves, sharp turns, intersections or merging points. 搞定到底有哪些地形和地理差别.这个才是深度论证.

It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area.  Elmsford may be an area of easier driving conditions where accidents are less likely to occur regardless of the speed limit.

官方范文的它因也就比我们习作中的反例多说了一层.
而且这一层也不是那么地变态深入.

年轻人老人开车危险,
急转弯交汇口容易出车祸,
都是一些常识.

这一层的差别.
就是我们的习作跟范文的重要差距之一.

与其写上三个展开不充分,毫无生气的反例,不如就写两个甚至一个反例,火力极其集中地把它们从微观上解剖清楚.

2 多个实例之间没有逻辑关系可言

example:
First of all, the arguer ignores the other possibilities that lead to the decline in the arctic deer populations.

Maybe in this area, nowdays there is a set of pollution that influence the arctic deer's life and the emvironment is entirely deteriorated, so as to that they cannot adapt on the environment even to be death. Finally the populition of artic deer reduce.

Perhaps among the group of artic deer around, there is a severe epidemic disease that threatens the life of arctic deer.

Or perhaps local hunters kill more the arctic deer than before that result in the decrease of arctic. It also intimidate the life of arctic deer.

So there is no conspicuous evidence to persent that the deline in arctic deer populations is mere the result of deer being unable to follow their age-ofd migration patterns across the fronzen sea.

三个它因: pollution, disease, kill.
它因之间没有明显的逻辑联系(比如让步)
单个的它因也没有明显地能够代表某一类的它因(比如内因,外因)
这样的话三个例子的这个3,也就是数量,除了字数会多,意义也就不是很大了.

再来看看官方范文

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.

example: (环境破坏未被发现的原因)
First, just because there is a lack of evidence does not preclude the fact that environmental damage may in fact be occurring.

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.

第一个原因:没有硬件条件或者培训.这个反例其实展开倒不是很完善.这个body精彩之处在下面的第二个原因和第一个原因的逻辑关系.

In fact, certain kinds of environmental damage may not be detectable in the short term even using the most sophisticated scientific methods. Imbalance in ecosystems, for example, may only become apparent over a long period of time.

第二个原因:就算有了测量的方法,某些环境破坏比如生态系统的失衡,在短时间内是无法观测到的.
让步关系.两个反例之间层次就非常鲜明了.

所举实例之间如果没有逻辑关系而且本身没有独特的代表性的的话,
不如只说一个.
说多了看了乏味,而且降低文章的清晰程度.

要做到段内例子之间有逻辑关联有点难度.
考场上做不到就算了.
不过下面一个问题大家一定要克服.

3  整个段落绝大部分篇幅全是实例,没有最基本的论证,甚至连ts都没有.

这个问题才是最要命的
我们不是为了举例子而举例子
而是为了使对于逻辑错误的论证更加生动具体有说服力

说到底,例子还是为说理服务的.
没有说理光有例子,这是舍本求末.

example:
First of all, the arguer ignores the other possibilities that lead to the decline in the arctic deer populations.

看了这个开头段落的ts都不知道作者到底想驳斥文章的哪一点,直接就是说鹿的数量下降还有别的很多原因,然后下面开始举例.不看到本段结尾的话连你论证的驳斥目标是什么都不知道.
严格地说这句话根本不能算ts,应该是放在ts后面总领实例的话.

Maybe in this area, nowdays there is a set of pollution that influence the arctic deer's life and the emvironment is entirely deteriorated, so as to that they cannot adapt on the environment even to be death. Finally the populition of artic deer reduce. Perhaps among the group of artic deer around, there is a severe epidemic disease that threatens the life of arctic deer. Or perhaps local hunters kill more the arctic deer than before that result in the decrease of arctic. It also intimidate the life of arctic deer.

So there is no conspicuous evidence to persent that the deline in arctic deer populations is mere the result of deer being unable to follow their age-ofd migration patterns across the fronzen sea.

这段话其实应该被放在段首ts(无法迁徙不一定导致数量下降)的后面作为虽然无聊(就是说没有证据)但是必须的一步论证,而且要把mere去掉.(题目中没有说到迁徙是唯一原因)

作为批驳的对象观念(无法迁徙导致鹿的数量下降)居然在段落的最后才出现.
阅卷人看你前面的一堆实例都不知道是干什么用的.

如果想做到更好,仅仅把这段话放在段首再加上ts还是不够.

可以考虑在ts后面置疑不迁徙了就真的会导致鹿数量减少吗?
然后再让步即使真的无法迁徙会降低鹿的数量,也没有证据证明鹿确实无法迁徙了(无证据,比如置疑融化的冰就是鹿迁徙的必经之路吗?),这个时候再甩出还有别的很多原因会导致鹿的数量下降.
多了这么几层推理论证后,段落就会迅速丰满起来,而不像原来纯粹变成了实例的堆彻.不知道在干什么.

官方范文先不找了.总结也等会再写了.
写得好累.
先到这里

[ 本帖最后由 iq28 于 2007-3-19 22:20 编辑 ]