Argument56 新的逻辑行文 请拍~

showkidUID: 2427308

56.Collectors prize the ancient life-size clay statues of human figures made on Kali Island but have long wondered how the Kalinese artists were able to depict bodies with such realistic precision(前提1). Since archeologists have recently discovered molds of human heads and hands on Kali(前提2), we can now conclude that the ancient Kalinese artists used molds of actual bodies, not sculpting tools and techniques, to create these statues(推论1). This discovery explains why Kalinese miniature statues were abstract and entirely different in style(前提3): molds could only be used for life-size sculptures(推论2). It also explains why few ancient Kalinese sculpting tools have been found(前提4). In light of this development, collectors should expect the life-size sculptures to decrease in value and the miniatures to increase in value(结论).

逻辑链：
前提2 推出 推论1和推论2

推论1 解释 前提4

推论2 解释 前提3

推论1、推论2和前提1 得出 结论
提纲：
1.总括此篇A所说问题，以及作者的依据和结论，并指出其逻辑链存在瑕疵和错误。
2.分条重述事实（前提）。
3.驳斥作者从前提到推论的逻辑过程，即从前提2 得出推论1和推论2。（或然错误）
4.驳斥作者用所得结论解释前提的逻辑过程。（必然错误）
5.驳斥作者从推论到结论的逻辑过程。（必然错误）


In this argument, the speaker talks about a case which mainly about the clay statues of human figures made on Kali Island. The author makes a serious of deduction, according to a recent discovery of archeologists. Then using these deductions to explain some facts facing now, and finally make a conclusion, that a prediction about changes of value of the life-size sculptures and the miniatures. However, the author’s line of reasoning is not strict and even includes some mistakes, which lead the conclusion to be unconvincing.

First of all, it is necessary to review the premisses, or can be called facts, which is involved in this argument.
1.Collectors prize the ancient life-size clay statues of human figures made on Kali Island but have long wondered how the Kalinese artists were able to achieve it.
2.Archeologists have recently discovered molds of human heads and hands on Kali.
3.few ancient Kalinese sculpting tools have been found
4.Kalinese miniature statues are abstract and entirely different in style.

After citation of the facts, I will do some analyses and oppugning along with the author’s line of reasoning.

To begin with the discovery of the archeologists, as it is the author’s foothold of the line of reasoning. According to this discovery, the author makes two direct deductions. First, the ancient Kalinese artists used molds of actual bodies, not sculpting tools and techniques, to create these statues. Second, molds could only be used for life-size sculptures, that is to say molds could not be used for miniature statues. In fact, the process of this inference, provided by the author, is full of flaws. It is most likely that the similarity of figuration between the statues and the found molds, can not determinate the way of how the statues are architected. For the first deduction, Kalinese artists may only use these molds to build an archetype of the statue, and then may do further works by their sculpting tools. And the same to the second one, Kalinese artists may use some unknown skills to finish the miniature statues together with molds.

Then, the author makes a further inference upon the two detections mentioned above. The author intents to explain some of the facts mentioned at the beginning of this article, so that makes the two detections more efficiency. First, the author explains, according to the first deduction mentioned in the above paragraph, why few ancient Kalinese sculpting tools have been found. In fact, the author wants to express a process of logic, that because a kind of tool was not used to be used, the amount of this tool would be surely very small, and naturally as a result of the fact that few tools have been found. Here, the author makes a wrong deduction. The correlation between two things does not mean that one thing can determine another. Although frequency of usage of one tool has some correlations with the amounts of this tool, the former one can not determine the latter one. Second, the author try to explain why Kalinese miniature statues were abstract and entirely different in style, through the second deduction mentioned in the above passage. The author try to express a line of reasoning, that because the style of those statues, which were architected from molds, are extremely similar, while the progress of architecting the miniature statues is not involved with molds, the miniature statues were abstract and entirely different in style. The author also makes a wrong deduction, that the wrong usage of non-logic. Extremely similitude and entirely difference in the style are two extremenesses. We can not infer one of the extremenesses by taking non-logic of another one. For an earthliness example, if a person is not extremely sick, then we conclude that the person is very healthy. Absolutely, this inference is very absurd.

After all, the author makes a final conclusion according to first facts quoted at the beginning of this article and the two deductions mentioned above. The line of reasoning of the author is: Collectors prize the ancient life-size clay statues of human figures, while have long wondered how the kalinese artists can do it. But now, the discovery of the archeologist explains the way of artists’ work. That is the full-size statues are architected from molds rather than skills, while the miniature statues are not. Subsequently, the author gets his conclusion that is a prediction actually, which claims that the life-size sculptures to decrease in value and the miniatures to increase in value. In short, the author strongly expresses this idea that the progress of how the statues were architected determines the value of the statues right now. However, this idea is fundamentally wrong. As a commonsense, the determinations of the value of the ancient statues are various, such as the amount of the statues, the social or history significance of the statues, which is much more important than the way of how the statues are finished.

To sum up, there are several fallows and even errors in the line of reasoning of the author. As a result, the conclusion is not convincing. To make this conclusion more valid and more cogent, the author should provide more details to support his deduction, and analyze this argument in a wider and a more profound aspect.

PS:对于A的逻辑行文和论述顺序我有很多疑惑，请看https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1073686-1-1.html。这个帖子还有我之前写的这篇A的中文版的，也许我在用英文表达的时候会有很多不准确，引起歧义和模糊之处请参考中文版的。。。谢谢了~

weaselUID: 2739489

In this argument, thespeaker talks about a case which mainly about the clay statues of human figuresmade on Kali Island. The author makes a serious ofdeduction, according to a recent discovery of archeologists. Then （病句缺乏主语）using these deductions to explain some facts facingnow, and finally make a conclusion,（逗号似乎不能加在这里） that a prediction about changes of value of the life-sizesculptures and the miniatures. However, the author’s line of reasoning is notstrict and even includes some mistakes, which lead the conclusion to beunconvincing.

First of all, it is necessary to review the premises, or can be calledfacts, which is involved in this argument.
1.Collectors prize the ancient life-size clay statuesof human figures made on Kali Island but have longwondered how the Kalinese artists were able to achieve it.
2.Archeologists have recently discovered molds ofhuman heads and hands on Kali.
3.few ancient Kalinese sculpting tools have beenfound
4.Kalinese miniature statues are abstract andentirely different in style.

After citation of the facts, I will do some analysesand oppugning（似乎没有vi，只能是vt. 参考的韦氏词典） along with theauthor’s line of reasoning.

To begin with the discovery of the archeologists, asit is the author’s foothold of the line of reasoning. According to thisdiscovery, the author makes two direct deductions. First, the ancient Kalineseartists used molds of actual bodies, not sculpting tools and techniques, tocreate these statues. Second, molds could only be used for life-size sculptures,
（that前不能加逗号，或者that改which可加逗号）that is to say molds could not be used forminiature statues. In fact, the process of this inference, provided by theauthor, is full of flaws. It is most likely that the similarity of figurationbetween the statues and the found molds, can not determinate the way of how thestatues are architected. For the first deduction, Kalinese artists mayonly use these molds to build an archetype of the statue, and then may dofurther works by their sculpting tools. And the same to the second one, Kalinese artists may use some unknown skillsto finish the miniature statues together with molds.

Then, the author makes a further inference upon thetwo detections mentioned above. The author intents to explain some of the factsmentioned at the beginning of this article, so that（缺主语）makes the two detections more efficiency. First, the author explains, accordingto the first deduction mentioned in the above paragraph, why few ancientKalinese sculpting tools have been found. In fact, the author wants to expressa process of logic, that because a kind of tool was not used to be used（不习惯被使用？）, the amount ofthis tool（thesetools）
would be surelyvery small, and naturally as（这地方语法不对）
a result of the fact that few tools have beenfound. Here, the author makes a wrong deduction. The correlation between twothings does not mean that one thing can determine another. Although frequencyof usage of one tool has some correlations with the amounts of this tool, theformer one can not determine the latter one. Second, the author try to explainwhy Kalinese miniature statues were abstract and entirely different in style,through the second deduction mentioned in the above passage. The author try to express a line of reasoning,that because the style of those statues, which were architected from molds, areextremely similar, while the progress of architecting the miniature statues isnot involved with molds, the miniature statues were abstract and entirelydifferent in style. （这句我看了半天才理解，除了，that那里似乎是没有错误，那里while改成and会不会更好一点）Theauthor also makes a wrong deduction, that the wrong usage of non-logic.Extremely similitude and entirely difference in the style are twoextremenesses. We can not infer one of the extremenesses by taking non-logic ofanother one. For an earthliness example, if a person is not extremely sick,then we conclude that the person is very healthy. Absolutely, this inference isvery absurd.

After all, the author makes a final conclusionaccording to first facts quoted at the beginning of this article and the twodeductions mentioned above. The line of reasoning of the author is: Collectorsprize the ancient life-size clay statues of human figures, while have longwondered how the kalinese artists can do it. But now, the discovery of thearcheologist explains the way of artists’ work. That is the full-size statuesare architected from molds rather than skills, while the miniature statues arenot. Subsequently, the author gets his conclusion that is a predictionactually, which claims that the life-sizesculptures to decrease in value and the miniatures to increase in value（缺主语）.In short, the author strongly expresses this idea that the progress of how thestatues were architected determines the value of the statues right now.However, this idea is fundamentally wrong. As a commonsense, the determinations（determinants）
of the value of
（太多这样的结构，可能尝试改成其它的介词或者the determinants of statues’ values）theancient statues are various, such as the amount of the statues, the social orhistory significance of the statues, which is much more important than the wayof how the statues are finished.

To sum up, there are several fallows and even errors inthe line of reasoning of the author. As a result, the conclusion is not convincing.To make this conclusion more valid and more cogent, the author should providemore details to support his deduction, and analyze this argument in a wider anda more profound aspect.


我只是改了些语法，具体文章结构和内容我想那个帖子版主说的已经很清楚了，语言表达有一些小错误会影响，而且跟我一样有个毛病是句型缺乏多变，努力，加油

showkidUID: 2427308

2# weasel

W同志真的辛苦了！
我在做这个“翻译”的时候，唯一追求的是去完成意义的完整转换。所以很多句子故意写成一样的，这样期望可以容易找对应，进而容易理解。
ANYWAY，thank u！