argument17 义无反顾小组第三次作业

kittywen_16UID: 2135347

呵呵，总是很粗心

yuviUID: 2169411

原帖由 Anddie 于 2006-5-12 22:12 发表
只看了“argument应该这样写(一)”
后面的找不到了
谈一点意见啊

个人觉得作者的观点没错:错误攻击应该从主到次
但他后面的分析有问题

首先，“Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections  ...

FAINT,我怎么今天才看到anddie写的东西..
晕倒..先作个记号吧,我明天来仔细看.
还有就是云MM好象没有改你的文章啊..她这两天都不在,不知道是不是有什么事了??:confused:

明天一起来看吧..先去睡了:)

yuviUID: 2169411

KITTY 和 VIKING,
你们两个互相改一下吧.:)

yuviUID: 2169411

anddie 同学的:

提纲：
1．调查的范围，数量未知;满意不代表值得多付钱 (我覺得調查可以最後寫的)
2．收得次数多不一定必要 （同意）
3．卡车数量多不代表运量多,也不代表都会投入使用 （前面同意，后一個覺得有點勉強哈）

In this argument, the arguer recommends that Walnut Grove’s town council should continue using EZ Disposal, the one that has had the contract for trash collection services for the past ten years, instead of switching to ABC Waste. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that EZ, although charges $500 more than ABC, collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. He also cites a fact that EZ, which used to have the same number of trucks as ABC, has ordered more of them. Finally, the arguer points out that EZ provides exceptional service that helped them to get 80 percent of respondents’ satisfaction, according to a survey last year. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is. （第一段有点眼熟啊，是不是北美范文里的，呵呵？）
First of all, the arguer fails to provide the information and quantity of the respondents.（这个respondents哪里来的呢？用来做TS有点指代不明） Thus it is quite reasonable if we doubt that the survey was carried out in a special group of people who are easy to get satisfied with EZ’s service or the survey was not based on a scientific evaluating method and a large number of samples.（有这个可能，但是一个论点不是应该用来说最重要的逻辑错误吗？这么安排会不会有点顾此失彼了？） In this case, the survey does not qualify for representing the overall attitude that most people holds toward EZ Disposal. Moreover, even if the survey succeed in showing people’s like of EZ, nor is it able to prove that EZ wins such more satisfaction than ABC does that it deserves the extra $500 the council will pay. （哎，又是拿500块钱说事？）Before clarifying all above, the survey is not valid and well-grounded enough to become a support of the arguer’s proposition.

In addition, it is still doubtable that the fact that EZ collects trash once more than ABC is what the town requires. That is to say, since it is not stated in the argument the size and population of the town, it is possible that the town doesn’t （正式书写不要用省略形式哈）need an additional weekly collection of trash at all, because it does not produce such a large amount of trash every week（恩，有道理）. Hence, it does not matter whether EZ collects trash twice a week or ABC collects once.

Finally, the more trucks that EZ will have does not lead to an inevitability that EZ is able to collects more trash than ABC does. On one hand, the arguer fails to illustrate the types and sizes of the two companies’ trucks, so we may suppose that all the truck that ABC has are large-sized while both EZ’s new and old trucks are middle-sized or, what is worse, small-sized, a condition leaves it unknown to us which company collects more trash at a time. On the other hand, I am still wondering（这个主观的话就不要说了吧，毕竟逻辑错误都是客观的） whether EZ will use all its trucks during one collection of trash in Walnut Grove’s town, for a company is always trying to reduce its costs to gain more profits.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically accepted, the arguer would have to demonstrate the survey's persuasion and the trucks that EZ has is just what the town needs that would result in people’s more satisfaction. Additionally, the arguer must provide evidence to rule out all the above-mentioned possibilities that might weaken the argument.
（恩，结尾也有点眼熟。。）

总结：
论点安排欠缺考虑，调查是个很小的方面，（也是最明显的错误），我认为没有必要特意安排在首位来说。
还有就是500块钱的事情，很多人都写了，但是对于一个市来说，一个月多500是个Big Deal吗？值得怀疑。。
至于增加的卡车是否用于收垃圾，“argument应该这样写（二）”里面有提到，呵呵，anddie有时间去看看？？

yuviUID: 2169411

anddie:

首先，“Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. ”绝对不是前提，而是假设,是医生的猜测，题目第二句话也提到是“hypothesis”。

我想你误会他的意思了,这个前辈并没有说这句话是整个过程的前提.(即给予它肯定的态度)
而是说,这个假设是整个论证的前提.(是否定的前提)

第二，后面的实验所证明的正是这个假设，注意到第一句话中的"suspected" "may" "some"和第二句话中的"This hypothesis".题目用两个对照组,因为实验只是一少部分病人,所以不能证明最后一句话中"all".
更确切的说:题目认为实验证明了第一句话，同时也证明了最后一句                而不是实验证明了第一句话，第一句话导出了最后一句
因此,therefore是针对实验来说的,而不是针对第一句的假设就therefore了

.

同意红颜色的..

最主要的逻辑错误是:实验并不能证明结论"Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment".
应该首先攻击的还是实验,而不是开始的一句

其实攻击第一句也要用到实验例子

"实验不能证明结论"是我们需要论证的过程啊..
怎么能算逻辑错误呢?
换成中文来想,这个题目第一句就说"医生怀疑第二次感染影响肌肉拉伤的愈合"
这个就是引起下面整个实验的原因,也就是(后文的)前提了.(所以不是等于承认这个才叫前提的哈)

AnddieUID: 2135826

恩。。。
芹菜MM：

首先，从逻辑上讲，原题所有的信息只有两种：前提（precondition）和结论（conclusion）。我们所要argue的是：原题的前提不能推出那个结论。
（当然这需要用到孙远总结的那许多方法）

所以从这一点上讲，我们在论证前要分清precondition和conclusion，这一点是至关重要的！而那位前辈所犯的恰恰是这个错误。

前辈的思路：
实验－－－－>第一句－－－－－>最后一句
（evidence）（precondition）   （conclusion）
所以他认为后一个箭头是主要错误

但正确上的思路应是：
第一句<－－（1）－－－实验－－－（2）－－>最后一句
（          precondition         ）                   （conclusion）

箭头1由第二句得出，箭头2由therefore得出（这一点也至关重要）。

（1）作为precondition的一部分是正确的，我们要批驳的是（2）

还有， 如果你：

原帖由 yuvi 于 2006-5-14 12:32 发表

[quote]
更确切的说:题目认为实验证明了第一句话，同时也证明了最后一句                而不是实验证明了第一句话，第一句话导出了最后一句

同意红颜色的..
[/quote]
那么其实你已经间接承认前辈是错的了
你再好好想一下就会明白的。:)

前辈的（三）写的很好，但他在（二）中犯了同样的错误。

PS：我前面那个写错了，不好意思

最主要的逻辑错误是:实验可以证明结论"Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment".
应该首先攻击的还是实验,而不是开始的一句

其实攻击第一句也要用到实验例子

[ 本帖最后由 Anddie 于 2006-5-14 13:50 编辑 ]

yuviUID: 2169411

辛苦anddie了,我记得第一篇作业是你第一次写AWA吧,
你的思维真是进步神速..pfpf!!

PS,我把你放在下次小结名单第一个了,呵呵~~不介意吧??:)