答sunshine：什么是论证

木耳UID: 123036

所谓论证，我也不能给一个准确的定义，只是在自己写作文和给别人改作文的过程中，总是觉得对自己的论点进行实证是最能说服人的。

所谓论证，其实就是说服别人的过程。不过采用什么样的形式，达到这个目的就好。

所以首先要条理清楚，也就是说要明确自己的论点，让别人先清楚你要说什么，因此对于一般人来讲，中心句很重要。当然，对于不用中心句也能叫别人信服的牛也是有的。

其次要用论据支持你的论点，也就是让读者明白你那样说的原因。现在大多数人的问题也就出在这里。一些文章，论据不少，但没说到关键。

最简单的论证结构就是论点--〉论据
但很多时候二者之间的关系并不是那么直接，这就需要在二者之间加一定的说明。
论点：人要吃饭
论据：饭提供能量
这样写没有错，不过如果细究的话就有问题：为什么饭提供能量人就要吃饭？这时如果在二者之间加一句：人的一切行动都要消耗能量，那这里就会通顺一些。当然，如果再较真下去，说人的一切行动为什么需要能量也就过犹不及了。

总之我现在也没有个十分明确的理论上的概念，只是看文章的时候就事论事。

realturtleUID: 69047

论据分为理论论据和事实论据，论证时不能光一味举例，也要恰当说理
很多人一段里面就举了一到两个例子，除了topic sentence以外，就没怎么说理了，这样不容易把问题说清楚。
说理时可以采取各种方式，例如反证，对比，归谬，etc
这样说理和举例结合比较好

realturtleUID: 69047

不是原创
是我今天翻东西在一个本子里面发现不知道原来从哪里抄来的
希望有点用^_^

论证方法：
1. example or fact (data)
2. authority 引用权威观点
3. analogy  类比
4. 演绎 （谁可以找个例子来？）
大前提，小前提，结论

下面写的几点我不知道该归到哪里：
1. illustration （举例子之类的）
2. logical division （具体什么意思？）
3. compare and contract 对比论证
4. cause and effect因果论证
5. definition 定义论证（揪着定义不放）
6. process 过程论证

论证过程中可以运用的修辞手法：
simile, metaphor, hyperbole, metonymy, euphemism, pun

I. simile 明喻
描写性的
eg. When I started working in a new company, I felt like a kid at school
说明性的
eg. Carlos Lehder was to cocaine transportation what Henry Ford was to cars.
A is to B what/ as C is to D
like, somewhat like, quite like, similar to, akin to , analogous to, be comparable to, be compared to, as if/ though, be sth of

II. metaphor 暗喻
eg. You must learn to become a surfer. The guys around you are either with you or against you and you've got to catch the wave.
eg. My life is a long curve, full of turning points.
eg. Sometimes you got into what I called a bubble boom, but every bubble  bursts.
eg. Police work on inner-city streets is a domestic vietnam (形容police工作混乱)
eg. I could hardly put up with his avid comment. He regards the problem as a thorn in his flesh.

III. metonymy 借代
eg. It's said that Marh has ruled the company with a brilliant ear and iron fist.
eg. Nixon's actions in the Middle East would strengthen his hand in China. (此处hand意为腰杆)
eg. It was high time they showed their teeth(强硬的态度) on the issue.

IV. hyperbole 夸张
eg. Bob made an exploding success.
eg. The two views are different in a thousand and one ways.
eg. The prices are soaring
eg. It's no crime to have mispronounced the word.
我们常用的skyrocketing也是类似

V. Euphemism 委婉
eg. depart, pass away, go to heaven
eg. plain, homely (ugly)
eg. a slow learner, an under-achiever (stupid)
eg. juvenile delinquency

VI. Pun 双关
eg. make a phone call/ I would like to be excused/ I have to retire for a moment/ may I wash my hand? ( go to the WC)
eg. --- Why do people call parliamentary reports "Blue Books"?
      --- Because they are never red. (read)


个人觉得这些修辞似乎没多大用处

realturtleUID: 69047

最初由 l-sunshine 发布
[B]谢谢，木耳：）

这两天我也一直在想到底怎样才是好的issue? 没想到绕了个大圈子后又回到原点！！！issue本来就是在讨论各领域富有争议性的问题。（ it has been at the ..

以下省略...... [/B]

我也想具体一点
每个弄些例子出来:-)
谁要是找到例子了，跟帖即可 ^_^

imongUID: 140258

Reasoning is the process of drawing conclusions from facts.

还是看看原版资料吧。^_^

http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/reason.html

The Process of Reasoning

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kathryn Best, UR Writing Center Tutor (WC '92)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reasoning: the process of drawing inferences or conclusions; moving from what is known (fact) to what is unknown (inference).

Types of Reasoning:

1.Reasoning from signs:
assuming that a sign or symbol represents or indicates something specific. For example, if you make a phone call and receive a busy signal, you assume that someone is already on the line. You take the sign, the busy signal, and infer that someone is on the phone. When reasoning from signs, make sure you have enough information to relate the sign to the inference (Beware of stereotypes like: "this author calls herself a 'feminist;' therefore she hates men").

2.Cause and effect:
inferring that one event causes another ("I was late because my alarm didn't go off.") or reasoning with the result in mind ("If I don't study, I will fail the test."). Here it is also important that you have enough information to link the events. Beware of assuming that things that happen sequentially are causally related (i.e., I got a sunburn because it's hot).

3.Reasoning by analogy:
drawing a parallel between two similar events, people, or traits. This type of reasoning is based on comparisons. For example: If all mothers are women, and Ann is a mother, then Ann must be a woman. Be careful to always check analogies for validity, because these don't work backwards. For example, because Ann is a woman doesn't mean she's a mother.)

4.Reasoning by example:
basing conclusions on facts, illustrations, or cases. One example of this is conclusions drawn from the results of polls or surveys. When drawing conclusions, always ask yourself, "Do I have enough facts to support this?" For example, "Candidate X had a 60% approval rating in the spring, therefore he will be elected in the fall" does not provide any information about the candidate's fall ratings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning

1.Inductive reasoning:
specific -> general; drawing conclusions or making generalizations based on several examples or situations (must be based on more than one example). "Plato is mortal, Aristotle is mortal, Dr. Kingsley is mortal. Therefore, all people are mortal."

2.Deductive reasoning:
general -> specific; applying a generalization to a particular case. "All people are mortal, therefore I am mortal."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fallacies in Reasoning

Unsupported generalizations: Always make sure you have enough factual evidence to support your generalizations. Beware of words like "all" and "every" unless you are 100% sure that there are no exceptions. Do not rely on stereotypes.

Impressing by large numbers (the bandwagon argument): Large numbers alone do not tell enough. Claims made on this basis need to be evaluated on their own merits because statistics can be misleading. For example, claiming that "75 out of 100 patients who used this therapy are still alive" does not tell the entire story.

Appeals based on authority: This occurs when the name, the authority, is not an expert on the issue at hand. For example, a famous actor may be an expert on the topic of acting, but we cannot take him/her to be an expert in other areas (like the best aspirin or traveller's cheques). Advertising often makes use of this common fallacy.

Post Hoc fallacy: Post hoc is part of a Latin term, post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"). This faulty reasoning results from a misunderstanding about what causes an event. For example, if you ate cereal for breakfast and then the phone rang, it would be wrong to assume that the phone rang because you ate cereal.

False analogy: This can result when your comparison is based on only one or two similarities. For example, "Hitler and Bach were both German men, therefore, they must be similar." It is often the case that the dissimilarities outweigh the similarities, so it is always important to examine all characteristics.

Linear thinking: This results when you do not have enough information and reduce the question to terms that are too simplistic. This fallacy is often expressed by the terms "either" and "or," providing only two sides or alternatives when more are possible. Ex: "We have to have the death penalty because otherwise all the murderers will be on the streets."

Circular reasoning: This is when you try to prove a point by just returning to the point itself. An example of this might be: "Homework is boring because it is so tedious." "Boring" and "tedious" mean about the same thing, so no new information is provided.

Ad hominem reasoning (attacking the person): This directs attention away from the argument at hand by attacking the personality of the individual involved. The person arguing ignores the issue and instead turns the focus to the credibility of his/her opponent. "Not only does Candidate X support abortion, but he's also been married four times."

Non sequitur reasoning: Non sequitur means "it does not follow," and it refers to conclusions that do not have logical connections to the evidence provided. In other words, you are assuming a connection between events that are disconnected and unrelated. "Violence in movies has a bad effect on children; therefore, no one should see violent movies."

Red Herring argument: This is when the person arguing brings in a side issue that it not relevant to the debate. For example: "She is a good doctor; she drives a great car and is really fun."

Ambiguity: This occurs when a statement is obscured by misleading sentence structure or unclear words. Do not take it for granted that your reader will know what you are trying to say. "Drink Chock-full-o'-Nuts; the coffee that has kept New York Cabbies awake for twenty years!" (Wow, that's STRONG coffee.)