复习ARGUMENT时可以学习的一篇文章
原文链接在这里 请点http://curt-rice.com/2014/03/06/why-are-women-so-uncooperative/
该文章的作者是Curt Rice，a Fellow at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study.此文章出自他的个人博客。
文章的题目是Why are women so uncooperative?
作者说他在Current Biology上面看到一篇文章说的是Female professors are less cooperative than men。
他说他本以为会在该文章内看到观察组中男女教授行为上的不同，但结果却不是这样。
然后他就根据这个文章里面的论点论据以及调查内容进行分析和驳斥。
里面其中有一段说该文章偷换概念，用co-authorship替代cooperative。那一段写得挺有理有据的，摘过来，大家先瞧一下：
Is co-authorship about cooperation?
The research uses co-authorship to measure cooperation.
Using numbers of co-authored, peer-reviewed publications as an objective measure of cooperation and professorial status as a measure of rank, the researchers calculated the likelihood of co-authorship with respect to the number of available professors in the same department.
In some technical sense, co-authorship of course does reflect cooperation, at least when cooperation is taken to mean simply working together.
But the claims and discussion around this article are confounding this technical meaning of cooperation with the goodwill that is part of the meaning of the word cooperative — and, indeed, that is often part of the idiomatic use of the word cooperate. A belief that women will be more cooperative is a belief that women go into situations with more willingness than men to show goodwill or be helpful. The claim that men cooperate more inevitably assigns to them beneficence.
Do the co-authorship patterns revealed by this research really show women to have less goodwill than men; does it show that they are less cooperative? Of course not. But there is a risk that this article will be used to claim that—lo and behold—women aren’t nearly as cooperative as you once thought.
Indeed, Professor Benenson encourages this, according to a quote in Science 2.0. “In ordinary life we often think of women as being more cooperative and friendly with each other than men are, but this is not true when hierarchy enters the picture.” That’s a difficult claim to understand when she and her colleagues write in their letter that they would not expect any differences between male and female professors when it comes to collaborating with students. How is that not part of a hierarchy?
It is a mistake to think that co-authorship reveals goodwill, or an attitude of helpfulness or a desire to work together towards a common goal. The nature of science is such that none of these things can be reliably inferred from co-authorship.
Why not? It’s because authorship on papers sometimes shows who actually did the work. But only sometimes.
Authorship can also be determined by self-promotion and negotiation—two skills which men perform more successfully than women. By way of anecdotal elaboration, consider Declining Courtesy Authorships, in which a woman academic tells of asking to have her name removed from papers to which she did not contribute, to the horror of her male colleagues.
而且在文章的最后呢，作者又对他的整个的驳斥和自己对该文章的态度做了一个总结：
The idea that independent evidence of a lack of cooperation between women of different ranks is affirmed by looking at publication patterns in one field, in a few departments, based on papers with exactly two authors who are both in the same academic department, without considering any other aspects of the academic lives of women researchers seems like a methodology that, frankly, is too clever by half.
虽然不是针对考试的ARGUMENT，但作者本身是个PROFESSOR, 辩的还挺严谨的。
大家如果时间不着急，可以看看呀
我觉得还挺好
页:
[1]