【ARGUMENT--bring order out of chaos】之 "君子之辩"

草木也知愁UID：2487572

=======================
                      前言
=======================

关于ARGUMENT中的SURVEY、数据问题，使徒和无夏都做过论述，但是到了今天，我觉得这个问题还是要重新拿出来提一提。同时我也要加进自己的一些思路和元素。使徒和无夏以及多位前辈的讨论，我会在下文中穿插进行。
.
今天主讲态度，次讲题目——

【ARGUMENT--bring order out of chaos】之 "君子之辩"

君子坦荡荡，小人长戚戚

为君子者可能实力不是很强，但是有一份傲气和正气在
.
可能有的时候“下三路”的“思路”、“技巧”看似很简单而且万能，一通写下去，“有思路”“有气势”
.
但是，扪心自问，你是否喜欢一些过于流气的文风呢？至少我很反感
.
rater想必也是不会青睐于那些文章
.
今天这篇，我强烈建议大家亲自参与进来，尤其是刚刚上完辅导课还有刚刚入门AW只是看过一两本书的同学们
.
不要嫌长、不要嫌累，我相信，如果你好好看了、做了，这篇真的可以帮你少走很多弯路，同时对AW以及将来你的写作、学习会有帮助
.
注：这篇文章真的很长很长很长，而且可能看完之后会让你有对过去所学东西的严重质疑，不过不要怕，AW的进阶都是要伴随着一次次迷茫然后寻找到正确思路而来的。如果看完这个有些许启发，那么我建议你趁热打铁，把星夜无夏、irvine666和我的帖子都搜索出来看看。同时，我的文风一直偏于激进，我尽力收敛，如果给某些同学造成打击，我先致歉。同时如果有什么意见建议，欢迎和我讨论。
.
.
=======================
                 他山之石可以攻玉
=======================
.
.
各位，不要羞怯也不要吝惜你的时间
.
请对下面这两篇（前两篇不是ARGUMENT的题目）做一下你现在对Argument“逻辑错误”理解的分析，然后跟帖贴出提纲（对于前两篇，凡贴出一篇提纲的同学，将会有50GTB奖励，两篇100GTB）
.
第一篇和第二篇都很长，但是如果不做，真的对不起我对这篇下的苦心，同时也学不到这篇分析的精髓
.
请一定要做！！一定！！！

PASSAGE ONE:
.
Domestication is not normally reckoned good for a species’s intelligence. All that grey matter is expensive to grow, so if you have an owner to do your thinking for you, then you do not need so much of it. Natural selection (not to mention deliberate selection by people) might therefore be expected to dumb domestic animals down.
Dogs, however, look like an exception to this rule. Some, such as herding sheepdogs, have been bred for tasks that seem to involve a lot of intelligence. More intriguingly, an experiment carried out in 2004 by Brian Hare, then at Harvard and now of Duke University in North Carolina, suggested that natural selection in the context of domestication had boosted dogs’ intelligence, too, by allowing them to understand human behaviour in a way that their ancestors, wolves, cannot. The latest study of the matter, however, suggests that is not the case after all, and that wolves, not dogs, are the clever ones.
.
Dr Hare’s experiments involved showing his animals two upside-down cups, one of which covered food. A human would then gesture in some way at the cup covering the food. In theory, if the animal being tested was properly interpreting the gestures, it should have been lured to the object that the experimenter was indicating. And that is what Dr Hare found. Dogs selected the cup hiding the food far more than half the time, whereas the wolves he used for comparison got it right no more frequently than chance.
.
That led him to conclude that domestic dogs have evolved an ability to understand what their masters are up to by living among people for so long. Monique Udell of the University of Florida, however, begs to differ. She observed that Dr Hare’s wolves, though captive, had not been raised among humans, and wondered whether learning rather than evolution explained his observations. Her team therefore worked with a mixture of pet dogs, dogs from animal shelters that had had minimal interaction with people, and wolves raised by humans. They exposed their animals to an experiment similar to Dr Hare’s and came up with strikingly different results.
As they report in Animal Behaviour, the wolves outperformed both shelter dogs and pets. Indeed, six of the eight wolves followed human gestures perfectly in more than eight out of ten trials. Only three of eight pets were as successful as that and, as with Dr Hare’s wolves, none of the shelter dogs performed better than chance. Far from being dumb, then, wolves are smarter than dogs. You just have to bring 'em up proper.
.
PASSAGE TWO:
.
EVERY year Britain’s school-children provide gratifying evidence of their increasing smartness. More leave primary school having done well in tests of reading, writing and arithmetic; more get top grades in national exams at ages 16 and 18. Nay-sayers, though, think this progress overstated, even illusory. They attribute rising marks to dumbed-down curricula, downward-drifting grade boundaries and teaching to the test. But even the gloomiest assessment, it appears, may not go far enough. In important ways, the country’s children appear to be becoming dumber.
.
Michael Shayer of King’s College London has been testing children’s thinking skills since 1976, when he and colleagues started studying the development of reasoning abilities in young people. In 2006 and 2007 he got 14-year-olds to take some of the same tests as 30 years earlier. The findings, to be published early next year, are sobering. More than a fifth of youngsters got high scores then, suggesting they were developing the ability to formulate and test hypotheses. Now only a tenth do.
.
The tests did not change, so the decline was not caused by different content or marking. And since they explored the ability to think deeply rather than to regurgitate information or whizz through tasks, the results matter deeply. In the purest test of reasoning, pupils were shown a pendulum and asked how to find out what affects the rate at which it swings. “Their answers indicated whether they had progressed from the descriptive thinking that gets us through most of our days, to the interpretative thinking needed to analyse complex information and formulate and test hypotheses,” Professor Shayer explains.
.
In 1976 more boys than girls did well, a fact the researchers put down to boys roaming further out of doors and playing more with tools and mechanical toys. Both sexes now do worse than before, but boys’ scores have fallen more, suggesting that a decline in outdoor and hands-on play has slowed cognitive development in both sexes. Britain’s unusually early start to formal education may make things worse, as infants are diverted from useful activities such as making sand-castles and playing with water into unhelpful ones, such as holding a pen and forming letters.
.
British children’s schooling may be hampered, too, by the tests that show standards rising. These mean teachers’ careers depend on coaching the weakest, rather than on stretching all children, including the most able. This interpretation is supported by another, more positive, finding from the research: that fewer children do very badly now than did 30 years ago.
.
When asked to speculate further on why fewer British teenagers now display mature reasoning, Professor Shayer eschews local explanations and puts the blame squarely on television and computers. They take children away from the physical experiences on which later inferential skills are based, he thinks, and teach them to value speed over depth, and passive entertainment over active. That chimes with other researchers’ findings of cognitive gains on tasks that require speed rather than close reasoning—useful, perhaps, as the pace of life accelerates, but hardly a substitute for original thought.
.
So what of children elsewhere? Britain’s are not the only ones kept inside for fear of traffic or paedophiles, or slumped in front of a screen for much of the day. “There is no similar evidence from elsewhere,” says Professor Shayer. “No one has looked for it.” Perhaps they should.
.


PASSAGE THREE:
.
The following appeared in a memo from the president of a company that makes breakfast cereals.
.
In a recent study, subjects who ate soybeans at least five times per week had significantly lower cholesterol levels than subjects who ate no soy products. By fortifying our Wheat-O cereal with soy protein, we can increase sales by appealing to additional consumers who are concerned about their health. This new version of Wheat-O should increase company profits and, at the same time, improve the health of our customers.
.
.
===============================
        逻辑辩驳中我推荐大家一定要铭记的一段话
===============================
.
DWA has reminded us that Carl Sagan had a "baloney detection kit." Here it is:
.
Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
Quantify, wherever possible.
If there is a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work.
"Occam's razor" - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is it testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
Additional issues are :
Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.
.
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:
.
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority"
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision).
Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
Excluded middle -considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle -unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.
Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public" .
.
.
=======================
              使徒大人说过的话
=======================
.
.
有关ARGUMENT中的无背景SURVEY要不要批
.
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=620337&highlight=
.
这个讨论已久, 我从来反对批ARGUMENT出现的"a recent survey shows...""a survey conducted by ...."之类的论据, 也就是无调查对象, 无调查手段, 无调查者背景的"三无调查"
.
理由很简单: "类雷同"
.
ARGUMENT的错误比较固定, 因此其写作中论点趋同很正常, 因此对于雷同判定也显得比较松，但是不同的题目, 错误不同, 其推断和批驳手法也不同, 即使同样的错误, 不同的人举出的它因也会不同, 做出的逻辑推断出发点, 方向都会不同, 因此才会有这五彩缤纷的作文世界
.
批改作文无数, 见到的看见SURVEY就上的也无数, 观其特征, 无不无比眼熟, 估计原因都来自于ETS的某篇官方6分范文:
.
Topic：
.
A recent survey of dental patients showed that people who use Smile-Bright toothpaste are most likely to have capped teeth -- artificial but natural-looking protective coverings placed by dentists on individual teeth.  Those people who had begun using Smile-Bright toothpaste early in life were more likely to have capped teeth than were people who had begun using Smile-Bright later in life.  In addition, those who reported brushing their teeth more than twice a day with Smile-Bright toothpaste were more likely to have caps on their teeth than were those who reported brushing with Smile-Bright less frequently.  Therefore, people wishing to avoid having their teeth capped should not use Smile-Bright toothpaste.
.
正文对应段落：
.
In evaluating the evidence of the survey, one must consider how the survey was conducted.  If the questions were leading or if the survey relied on self reports, the results might be unreliable -- people might just respond with the expected answer.   One must also consider how broad the survey was.  If the survey was limited to a few patients of a certain dentist, the results might be attributable to those particular individuals and that particular dentist.  Hence, the generalization drawn might not apply to most people.  In addition, even if the survey was broader, one must consider whether it was limited in certain ways.  For example, were the survey respondents old people?  Was the survey limited to a certain city or geographic region?  Factors such as these could explain the survey results and could undermine the generalizability of the survey results.
.
我们先不说这样的置疑是否有效是否有力是否有根据是严谨还是吹毛, 既然ETS这么写了咱就拿它当宝贝.
.
请问, 对于这种没有特殊性的论据的攻击, 你能保证写出比这个官方范文有更多细节更多可能性更严密的论证么?
.
请问, 你能保证举出的细节和可能性比作者更多, 却不是空穴来风而是有理有据么?
.
请问, 你能保证写到所有的置疑点, 却依旧有自己的个性么?
.
请问, 你能保证阅卷官在看了成千上万个类似的段落后, 还会对你的这段论证有好奇心, 有好感, 会依据它给你高分么?
.
ARGUMENT有240多道题, 所有题的因果关系中的因和果都不会是一样的, 推广的参考者和接纳者也不会是一样的, 因此即使一个月内最高频率几十人抽到同一道题, 阅卷官撞大运一个人把所有这些都收了, 也顶多看几十道, 而survey呢? 几十道题都可以这么用, 同样的话换哪里都一样用, ETS又把最标准最牛B的格式摆在那里了, 大家模仿起来哪个不是熟练成精写得比ETS还ETS, 试问这样阅卷官会看到多少疑似N胞胎的段落? 看多了什么反映? 烦.
.
这个就是所谓的"类雷同", 它不是严格意义上的雷同, 也不会必然使考试分数被取消或者给得极低, 但却会破坏文章的个性和针对性, 作文是要找亮点的, 没有亮点的作文阅卷官自然找不出给你高分的理由, 而类雷同的文章何来亮点?
.
的确, 5分的作文要求中并没有提到"OUTSTANDING", 只是要求STRONG ,但是GRE考试的评分遵循"爽度平衡", 即你爽了他不爽, 总有部分人爽有部分人不爽, 当所有人在同一点上都进化到STRONG了, 那么这一点上还有STRONG可言么?
.
另外可能有人觉得我老这么说大家都不写无背景无资料的SURVEY了, 自己一写就爽了--放心, 能看到我这帖子的人在GRE考生中绝对是少数......
.
.
.
iq28对上文的分析
.
偶现在在看题库~
每篇总结三个错误加上整理攻击顺序
基本不是实在找不到错误了,或者调查跟所要证明的目标之前明确有很大的差别
不会去随便攻击调查错误的
因为survey属于前提,前提按照pooh的说法是不要单独攻击的~
.
还记得第一次看到三部曲里面，pooh跟imong说不要攻击前提条件。现在个人看真的很有道理：
.
如果连陈述性质的前提条件,只要是没有提到的细节(比如调查没有说到调查对象,人数,背景,方法)都可以argu的话，我们可以从argument材料中找出要多无厘头有多无厘头的错误来。我相信ets不是希望考大家抬杠的本事 而是想考虑大家真正思维推理的能力 从而找出argument中间找出推理中的动态缺陷 那样的argument才是高层次也是ets想看到的~~
..
孤立静止的内容,也就是材料中间给出的前提,包括那些survey,都应该是假定他们本身是没有错误的,我们要找的是他们一旦与下面的逻辑推理或者结论相关起来的时候,那些动态推理步骤中间的错误,这个时候可能会涉及到survey的本身的问题~
.
斗胆举自己写过的几个argument的例子~~
.
题目中：
蓝色的字表示survey本身,个人认为和别的背景信息一样都应该默认是正确的
红色的字表示作者推导出的最终的实质性行动或者建议
紫色的字表示推理过程或者那些建议的理由好处等等(也是推理)
.
TOPIC: ARGUMENT174 - The following recommendation was made by the president and administrative staff of Grove College, a private institution, to the college's governing committee.
.
"We recommend that Grove College preserve its century-old tradition of all-female education rather than admit men into its programs. It is true that a majority of faculty members voted in favor of coeducation, arguing that it would encourage more students to apply to Grove. But eighty percent of the students responding to a survey conducted by the student government wanted the school to remain all female, and over half of the alumni who answered a separate survey also opposed coeducation. Keeping the college all-female, therefore, will improve morale among students and convince alumni to keep supporting the college financially."
.
不要去攻击那些学生是否诚实回答了,也不要攻击她们是不是占了学校的大部分人数,等等等等,这些东西只要你知道他是个survey,然后你攻击的这些东西survey里面没有提到,那么你根本就不用再看材料的其他部分,无论这个survey是关于什么的,不用动大脑,背好的模版直接套上就可以攻击.
.
照此类推,文章给出的基本陈述类型信息你都是可以攻击的,因为它们可能把每个可能被你攻击到的细节都说到.比如说,既然你攻击参加调查的学生是不是占了大多数,那你进一步也可以攻击那个majority是51%,剩下49%反对仍然不可忽视;既然你可以怀疑survey的调查对象可能说谎,你干脆攻击学校号称的all-female也是假的算了.如果这个就是ets的argument游戏规则,那么文章中间有无数个可以考验大家脑筋急转弯的地方,我觉得ets可以关门了.这些无聊的找茬随便什么一个蹩脚的娱乐频道多的是.而我们要写的是analytical writing,重在分析推理过程,不是要去纠缠于材料提供的信息.
.
到这里我只是想说明如果孤立地找survey的错误有多么荒谬和无聊,同样找别的背景陈述材料本身的错误也是如此.
.
下面就是具体应该怎么找跟survey(其实就是背景材料的一种)相关的错误
.
调查本身只是反映一个事实,在不包含推理和结论的情况之下,它们和文章中间提出的其他客观的信息等价,应当是默认正确的.比如这篇中间说,80%回应学生会组织的调查的学生说,她们希望学校仍然是女校,这句话本身是没有问题的.关键在于作者要以它为参考推理到仍然应该保持女校传统,这个时候的survey才有了攻击的价值.首先,survey得出的结果学生们希望保持女校真的能推导出学校就应该保持女校吗?学生的观念学校就应该遵从吗?参加survey的在校学生当然都是女生,她们选择这所学校很可能就表示她们认同了女校优点大于缺点,以询问她们的结果作为是否应该改变女校传统的依据,这样做合理吗?(只有针对上了后面的推理,样本选择不科学的攻击才有了价值;孤立于调查本身,样本是什么对于调查所显示的事实她们希望学校仍然是女校是毫无影响的,也就谈不上样本是否合适)对于survey的攻击,一定不能仅仅局限在survey提供的信息(80%回应学生会组织的调查的学生说,她们希望学校仍然是女校,这个是信息而不是结论!!),而要攻击survey与相关结论(Keeping the college all-female)之间推理(这个论据和结论之间并未说到明显的推理,后面标注出来的紫色推论前半句即士气问题基本上是材料作者根据同校问题直接自己提出的理由)的错误,这时候攻击涉及到survey才不是前面所说的那种无意义的找茬而是在analyze
.
再比如over half of the alumni who answered a separate survey also opposed coeducation.这个也算是一个没有背景方法的调查,同样不要攻击这句话本身的问题,别再去攻击校友是不是真的反对男女同校了.而是要攻击它与最终结论中间的推理convince alumni to keep supporting the college financially.反对男女同校是否意味着一旦男女同校了就会失去信任么不给钱了?教育质量?科研进步?都不看了?
.
再次重申,不要去攻击survey的本身,而要去攻击它引出的推理...
.
ARGUMENT38 - The following memo appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council.
.
"An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work,
we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism."
.
调查没有涉及方法和具体对象人群
.
别去攻击调查的人感冒去了医院之后是不是不肯告诉别人,或者攻击这个调查是卖鱼的搞的,所以有倾向性.酱紫还不如攻击consumptions高是因为买的鱼被宠物猫吃了有前途.
.
这个调查本身 在附近的East Meria,那里鱼的消耗量很大,人们每年去医院看感冒的次数只有一到两次,这句话本身没有问题.也就是这个survey到这里一点问题都没有,那句话就得承认他是事实,它只是陈述了两件事实,一个是人吃鱼多,一个是人去医院看感冒少.就这么多而已.后面将这两件事情关联起来乃至扣上因果的帽子,那是后面要批驳的事情,和盲目批驳这个survey无关.尽管要推导到最后的结论the daily use of Ichthaid中间还有长的距离(鱼不是inchthaid等等),但与这个survey直接相连的一步推理 eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds.是可以而且必须对应联系到survey来攻击的.去医院看感冒少就是得感冒少吗?这两个孤立的事实之间真的就像作者说得那样存在因果关系吗?它们甚至之间有联系吗?
.
这些攻击才算是动态的,思辨的.
.
这些关于survey的讨论同样适用于题目中别的背景陈述

再次重申，上面题目中间
蓝色的字表示survey本身,个人认为和别的背景信息一样都应该默认是正确的
红色的字表示作者推导出的最终的实质性行动或者建议
紫色的字表示推理过程或者那些建议的理由好处等等(也是推理)
.
总结:
argument重点的攻击,应该放在推理与基本信息之间的联系,还有推理与最终结论行动建议之间的联系,而不是放在孤立的背景信息上面.背景信息也就是当时pooh所说的前提.前提都要假定它们是正确的,请不要单独攻击它们的正确性.
就像n多人写的调查方法如何,回答者的数量是否足够,回答者是否诚实回答了问题.....
这些都是在argument前提,无用功.
.
.
=======================
                    无夏大人说过的话
=======================
.
.
【鸡肋如何食?--讨教一下ARGU中的数据问题】
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=695143&highlight=
.
Sunday,复习aw终于到了胃反酸水的地步.消极怠工加精神恍惚.
只好上来发发牢骚,又觉得是在浪费时间.所以就还是围绕AW写作瞎扯一下吧.
.
数据处理问题,偶觉得是A写作的一块鸡肋.是最轻而易举就揪出来的小辫子,但又实则嚼蜡.
而实际上,在讨论之前,要先提出另一个问题.那就是,各位认为ARGU到底有没有主题?或者说,应不应该有意识的给其拟一个主题?
.
因为我是experienced先A再I又回到A的复习顺序. 大家都知道,因为I本身的complexity,所以通常我们都会自己为其找一个上源,然后有一个主题,例如个人利益和大众利益的问题,这种. 在经过training了一段日子的ISSUE题之后,回头看ARGU题忽然有了一个认识,是否A也是需要有一个主题的?虽然以往的意识一直是有错说错,最多计较一下逻辑的排列.举个例子说吧:
.
49.The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a newsletter on health issues.
.
"For the past decade, most health experts have advised teenagers to avoid eating greasy foods in order to prevent acne 痤疮and related skin conditions, but the number of teenagers who sought medical help for these skin problems has actually risen over the same period. In a recent study, teenagers who avoided greasy foods for a month reported approximately as many outbreaks of acne and related skin conditions as did those who ate an average of two servings of greasy food per day. Such data indicate that eating greasy foods is unlikely to be a cause of acne and related skin conditions. Therefore, health experts should no longer recommend that people avoid such foods."
.
过去10年中，多数健康专家建议青少年应避免油腻食物来防止痤疮和相关的皮肤问题，但在此期间因这类皮肤问题寻求医疗帮助的青少年数量实际上上升了。|最近的一次调查中，一个月不吃油腻食物的青少年上报的痤疮和相关皮肤问题的发生率与那些平均每天吃两份油腻食物的青少年基本相同。|这一数据表明吃油腻食物不太可能是痤疮和相关皮肤问题的诱因。因此，健康专家不应该再建议人们避免这类食物。
.
按照惯例来看,我们都习惯于先挑青少年的数量上升有其他多种因素导致,可能再小提一下10年的有效性;接着就重点抓住调查来攻击,说两组人马情况不同,存在多因,之类的;最后就说说专家的建议是错误的以点代面了
.
然而,当我换成用思考ISSUE题的思维再来宏观的看这段话,会发现作者其实得出最后的结论,都是基于一个主要问题的基础上.于是我就把提纲的第一句写下,根据对油腻食物到底是不是跟皮肤问题有关的讨论,再重新审视作者使用的两个evidence,会发现都能与主题环环相扣的:
.
Core:Around a major problem that is whether eating greasy foods is relevant to skin problems?
.
1 The suggestions advised by health experts and the increasing number of teenagers who have skin problems. (我列提纲的时候比较粗略,意思就是这段需讨论"专家建议"和"增长人数"之间的关系)
.
2 About the survey, it made a comparison between those who eating without greasy foods and who eating greasy foods as double amounts than the former（就是说来讨论下不吃和吃两倍的人的关系）
.
其他就没有再写了。基于这两种关系的分别讨论，想来可以对油腻食品是否与皮肤相关的关系做出一些阐述。接下来要做的就是可以顺理成章的讨论专家要不要建议人们了。当然，对于提纲我写的比较略，事实上对于那些关系的讨论，也还是是否相关，是否多因，是否合理类比这种常规的纠错论述。只是觉得，出题者也应该不会是胡抓来若干evidence凑成一个passage，也许冥冥中暗藏什么天机。这是我的猜想，并且基于恍惚了一天的状况上。但是至少，会让整个论述显得好像更有目标感一点儿吧～？大家觉得呢？还有一个刚刚想出来的好处，之前不是常有人抱怨说逻辑难组，可如果事先有意识的设一个小主题，好像就自然而然的变得逻辑了起来。而且我认为主题不应是唯一的。权看大家切入角度吧。
.
～～～～～～～～胸闷的分隔线～～～～～～～
.
接着开始说“数据处理“的问题。总之我的感觉是，复习的一开始是最乐于揪它错的了。比例啦，绝对数量啦，参照物啦，样本数啦。可是到了中期对于数据问题，是又觉得倦怠，又觉得不敢不说。首先咱们先达成一个共识，就是数据问题在不同的题中也肯定充当不同份量的角色。不可一概而论。然后可以发现，大部分的题，数据问题仍然是一个附属交待，或者干脆做成前提。很少让它挑大梁。我猜想，也许ETS也是刻意不让我们花太大篇幅讨论它。
.
先说充当次要角色的数据问题吧。根据我前文提出的那个有关建立一个ARGU小主题的猜想。我想如果有了一个小核心，那么就只需将各点围着它转了。对于要不要让数据自成一段，还是一笔带过的犹疑显然不成为一个问题了。有需要就多上，无需要就隐退。
但如果问题的给出显然是告诉你数据是个主要的角色，例如：
.
54.The following appeared in a newsletter on dental health.
.
"A recent research study reported the experience of dentists whose patients had, over a period of five years, regularly used Flux Dental Floss as part of their dental hygiene routine. The report indicates that these dentists had 50 percent fewer cases of gum disease than did dentists whose patients did not use Flux regularly. In addition, most of the Flux users who were surveyed by their dentists agreed that Flux's mint flavor would encourage people to floss more often. Thus, even though Flux may cost more than other brands of floss, it is clearly a worthwhile investment for those who want to be assured of healthy teeth and gums."
.
最近一项研究报告了其患者在五年期间有规律地使用Flux牙线来作为他们牙齿卫生工作程序之一的牙医的经验。§报告指出这些牙医的患者牙床疾病的发病率比那些不经常使用Flux的患者低50％。§而且，牙医所调查的多数Flux的使用者同意Flux的薄荷香味促使人们更经常地使用牙线。§因此，尽管Flux比其他牌子的牙线贵，对于那些想要保持牙齿和牙床健康的人来说显然是一项值得的投资。
.
在这里我写的小主题是：
.
core: Buy the Flux is (or not)worthy for keep healthy teeth and gums.（还是需讨论牙齿好不好跟用不用牙线的关系）
对于这题的判断，我认为第一小节是交代性的，不应盲目质疑，忽略之。比较第二小姐和第三小姐，明显可以发现3的重要性和可讨论价值显然比2要少。第四节作为结尾的讨论也无问题。那么这就导致需要主体攻击2小姐。.
.
So let's look at the Miss. Second, 老实讲，我在这里饶了半天，逻辑是没绕清的。胸闷了一阵。现在开始动刀抽丝剥茧吧。Keywords是，患者两摊，发病率50%和F使用率。根据以设主题，应该比的是”用的比不用的状况要好“。就从使用率先下手吧，题目未交代清楚双方使用率的概念，这是我看出来的主要问题。说完这个，稍稍颔首让步一下，接着说两摊患者的状况模糊，人数，自身身体状况，程度，和存不存在他因的问题，我觉得挑两三个说足够了。最后，承前文，因为这些的混乱，所以50%这个数字显得很无效。On the other words, it can not represent our topic.
.
推到这里，老实讲，我觉得满耗元气的。因为我是不喜欢主动去剥数据问题，我不知道这是大家都有的问题，还是只有我比较弱。如果你们都不觉得这是困扰，可否指教一下小女如何能高速和高效的完成这个打碎重组的过程？不胜感激
.
.
最後の使徒对上面的分析
.
看了半天才弄懂..大概我平时写的时候从来不注意数据的问题, 象LZ举的牙线这道题里50%是一个很大的差别, 的确可以证明一组和另一组的差异, 因此这个比较的重点就不在数据差异而在样本本身的差异了, 比如用牙线多的人很可能对自己的牙齿健康更为在意因此存在其它手段来保护牙齿形成一个它因攻击.
.
怎么处理数据个人认为还是要具体题目具体分析, 有的题目数据就给的很模糊, 比如ARGUMENT10说牛奶价格涨了一倍, 但物价水平和成本不知道, 因此这个一倍到底多不多是不能确定的, 还有ARGUMENT17的对EZ 80%的满意度, 也不能判断是不是一个很高的满意度, 这些情况下数据比较就显得没有那么明确的标准, 相对而言牙线题的数据比较则比较容易作为标准, 因此也难以作为攻击点.
.
至于要剥离数据考虑个人觉得这样难度很大, 因为很难就一个数字展开多少讨论, 不过也有些题目纯粹以数字为游戏的, 比如6年报废车辆那道题(题号忘了...)几个数据本身作者就玩了个很逻辑的游戏, 因此需要用一定的篇幅去处理这个数据的错误组织.
.
至于ARGUMENT主题的问题, 我倒觉得以作者目的为攻击点的话都可以把主题归结为作者建议不可行/结论不可能这种问题上, 虽然在中间也有其它的要素可以归为主题比如题目讨论对象之间的逻辑关系, 但往往存在其它需要考虑的因素而不光是这个逻辑关系, 就象范文的大学广告那道题, 可能主要问题出在题目给的论据上, 但还是需要用一段去说题目说到的问题不能作为选择大学的标准, 还有很大其它问题需要被考虑.
.
.
=======================
                    我要说的话
=======================
.
如果你能坚持看到这里，相信你的脑袋里已经充满了灵感和思路，有这个激动心情想要去写一篇试试了吧。不过，在这里我还要把前辈们的思路做一个提升，一个逻辑层面的提升——
.
也就是，ARGUMENT的君子之辩
.
请注意，我并非严格排斥对survey的“攻击”，只不过我排斥对survey的高度模板化攻击。bring order out of chaos，这次要拿出的规则，就是摒弃过于投机的无意义数据模板攻击
.
上面对各类survey批驳给出了诸如：抬杠、找茬、最容易揪的小辫子、鸡肋、味同嚼蜡等等的评价
..
这里，我想给出我对此类攻击的评价：“下三路”（如果现行辩驳模式定做九路，主流状态都是中三路和下三路；至于上三路，有少数老师点出过某一点，也有很多同学自己悟出过一些，但是都没有系统化实践化，作为压箱底的王牌，我会最后拿出）
不能说这种攻辩方式绝对不对，而且这个曾经在官方的思路提示中给过。但是在现行的主流总结里，这个已经转型为一个极被推崇的高度模板化攻击方式。因为这个投入产出比“真的”很“高”——背一两个模板段，然后见到题目，只要有数字、有统计调查、有研究，就可以上去就说。注意这个辩驳的三个关键点——装专家、不动脑模板、不切题。
.
确实洋洋洒洒上百字而且不用动脑子，简单而且“见效”。可是说完之后呢？这样对自己负责么，对topic负责么，对rater负责么？
.
.
.
引用一下ETS官方范文对每篇文章comments里与此次“君子之辩”相关的部分：
.
【3分】The author begins with a criticism about the lack of "concrete information" but then fails to provide any concrete analysis in the essay.
.
【3分】The author issues a generic call for more research and facts and offers an unsupported conclusion of his or her own: "Clearly, to reduce the speed limit??? would not eliminate the problem."（注意语气和分数档）
.
【4分】The writer critiques the vague and incomplete description of the survey, noting that the lack of details makes the argument unsatisfactory and logically unsound. Several criticisms are offered to support the critique:
-- The survey's validity is questionable
-- The sample may not adequately represent the general population
-- It is illogical to assume that using Smile-Bright causes capped teeth
While all three criticisms are relevant, development is only cursory. Moreover, the linkage among these points is vague, the primary connection being that each provides evidence of the omission of "pertinent facts."In the third paragraph, the writer reasons that the argument would be more persuasive if it were published in a scholarly journal. This, however, is unrelated to the line of reasoning in the argument, and only detracts from an otherwise competent analysis.
.
【3分】There is no apparent organizational plan in this essay.  It is not disorganized, but the several points of the response are juxtaposed rather than clearly connected. Language control is generally adequate, but the declarative sentences are unvaried and awkwardly phrased (e.g., "People brushing more should get less capped teeth than people who brush less"). At least one sentence displays incorrect syntax: "The statement about when in life somebody uses the toothpaste is related to if they have capped teeth does not make sense."
there are severe and persistent errors in language, grammar, and syntax.（没有对范文中攻击survey有直接表态，但是看一下整体态度吧）
.
【4分】This adequate response targets the argument's vague and inconclusive "statistics." The essay identifies and critiques the illogical reasoning that results from the misguided use of the argument's statistics:
*that non-use of equipment may be "automatically" assumed to be the cause of injury
*that "accidents" may refer to minor injuries
*that injuries may result from other causes - skating in the dark, failure to train or warm-up properly, failure to recognize one's physical *limitations（注意这里的辩驳，都和原topic中的key words以及关键逻辑点很契合的）
.
【2分】Rather than analyzing the unfounded claims, the essay complains about the lack of "concrete evidence." （我的理解，这个可以翻译成——该干什么不干什么）In particular, the writer believes that Claria's assertions would be more believable if the article included both the names of the "internationally renowned" faculty and the fields in which the two Claria graduates won Nobel Prizes. However, these are only superficial criticisms; there are glaring flaws in the argument, but the writer misses these.  In addition, the second criticism is unfounded; the Nobel Prize category (physics) is mentioned in the argument, and the former Claria students are described only as "candidates," not as winners.
.
综上，还是那个结论，我并非严格排斥对survey的“攻击”，而且如果攻击好了，很好的切题而且做到了develop和sufficient（如那个四分的comment）是会被夸奖的。但是请注意，做到那个，很难。要建立在你对AW有正确态度，而且认认真真熟练训练过之后才行。
.
对于绝大多数同学，尤其是刚刚上完课的同学，有些打击得说，你们现在对survey的理解还是经常会是these are only superficial criticisms; there are glaring flaws in the argument, but the writer misses these.的状态。这个有一部分原因是大家对AW的不熟悉不熟练，还有一部分愿意是想要走”近路”，少花精力。对这个，我只能很严肃的说，请不要这样。无论是从对自己负责的角度，还是说以后长远的实力锻炼，真的采取一个绝对应试态度去应用模板化攻击模式，其结果只能犯到“fails to provide any concrete analysis in the essay”“ While all three criticisms are relevant, development is only cursory.”“ Rather than analyzing the unfounded claims, the essay complains about the lack of "concrete evidence.”
.
以前讨论题目的时候，聊到有统计、实验和数据题目的时候，总是会有很多很多同学去挑实验的错误。我去问为什么，得到的答案有："这题里面这一小堆数字看着心痒…想说它有错…" 、"额…这个，因为只是reported的数据"、"倒数第二句说报告的作弊人数下降了，我想说这句有问题，因为得到报告数的方法就存在问题的"
.
请看一下你给上面三篇列出的批驳提纲里有没有呢？
.
现在可以公布一下第一篇和第二篇的出处——economist（经济学人杂志）
..
第一篇--Domestication
Not so dumb animals
Oct 16th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Wolves are, after all, cleverer than dogs
.
第二篇--intelligence
Dimming
Oct 30th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Disturbing evidence of a decline in youngsters’ brainpower
.
试问economist的编辑们的英文素养如何？试问他们的审编校对能力如何？试问他们对economist这样高水平级别杂志的驾驭力如何？如果可以承认他们都是资深的英文杂志编辑，那么他们的逻辑辩证力如何？
.
上面的题目我曾经改装过然后拿给别人做，好几个人都是指着topic里的实验测试什么的就开始给我讲，很投入很自信。其实我觉得不好笑，只不过他们被一个以讹传讹的假象蒙蔽的自己本身的逻辑思辨力。
.
现在开始最核心的实质——对于实验的态度
.
看一下你对上面那两篇economist的批驳，去套用一下两个很鲜明的标准，你的辩驳里是【The essay identifies and critiques the illogical reasoning that results from the misguided use of the argument's statistics】呢，还是【Rather than analyzing the unfounded claims, the essay complains about the lack of "concrete evidence】呢？给自己一个中肯的评价吧。
.
看我这个贴的理科生想必不少，平时做实验的同学也肯定有好多
.
要是自己做个实验，然后写出去结果要发表，确被别人这么数据没有任何可信度，你觉得那人流氓不？
.
任何去做实验做统计的人，只要保证诚信的前提（这个对于ETS的argument topic我们是完全可以信任的）就说明做之前是有了预期以及可行性分析的
.
只不过因为字数限制没法把选择机制、具体实施细则全部告诉你。可能大家被国内的舆论、广告忽悠的比较厉害，但是请记住一点，真正的统计实验执行人，都是专业人士。做过很多专业分析之后，才开始进行的
.
空空的对实验的设计思路等进行实体攻击：
一则费力不讨好（关于逻辑衔接攻击与实体论点攻击区别，请看0910G同主题第3期）
二则很难说的堂堂正气，并且让rater也认为你很正义
三则动用背景知识，装得跟专家一样，其实反倒露怯。rater不想看你的专业素养，他们要看的是“analytical”
.
和“庖丁解牛”的那个结合一下，ARGUMENT要我们分析的是逻辑上这个topic如何单薄而不是其本身内容。要是质疑数字
就偏离了。
.
所谓的万用攻击，脱离了每一个题目的内涵，真的很无理
请在心里永远记住一点——ARGUMENT永远是逻辑质疑
.
说到这里，不得明确一点是：难道以后我们看到topic里的survey，就要退避三舍么？
.
答案绝对是否定的，survey给出，是做论点支撑，一个topic中的实验往往由两部分组成：实验的操作以及结果，实验的结果分析。这个结果分析因为融入了topic作者的主观分析，所以衔接处往往是最大的破绽。打蛇打七寸，大的就是这里。至于如何去结合每一个题目的特性，去做，就看大家的了。同时，我也会在下下期的【ARGUMENT--bring order out of chaos】中讲解~
.
对了，有一点不好融入进上面的分析，我在这里单独列出来：
有的生物学实验，素材很难找的
而且生物学实验里，有很多试验方法去增加实验统计可信性
所以如果大家看到有人用十几个人做XX病的实验，就不要强求要用上百万个case做出统计多数了
做不来的
同理，对实验周期、药品什么的也是这样
.
.
最后对以上的一万两千字的精华浓缩：
.
1、请，在辩驳过程中要有礼有力有节，谢谢

2、请，尊重实验操作和设计，不要做无背景攻击，谢谢

3、请，对实验由结果进行分析的衔接部位做辩驳而非实体，谢谢

4、请，不要应用无意义的通用模板，尤其是整句整段的使用，谢谢

.
.
.

442371236UID：2636160

shafa

jessicaluluUID：2471730

呃，其实我对第一篇确实列了提纲的，攻击了第二个实验，动物样本的选择。。。感觉没有可比性。。。囧。。。
看了老大的文，收获很多哈。
但是，我以为这一大篇洋洋洒洒的，只是把我脑壳里找漏极漏洞的思路颠覆了，急需实践。。。

berninaUID：2503038

恩。终于发了、、、、

ddcmj519UID：176326

路过支持~

wildrose800331UID：2602131

偶的逻辑性真的很差
第一篇
Brian Hare’s case study support domestication can boost intelligence.

Domestication is to adapt (an animal or plant) to life in intimate association with and to the advantage of humans (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/domestication)So it comprises learning and evolution in my opinion.

Monique Udell’s case differs learning and evolution, but the raised wolves’ out-performance indeed justifies Dc. Hare’s assumption that domestication can improve intelligence of raised animal.

题外话：感觉自己像在学游泳，教练曾发誓要教会我；结果我一遍又一遍地宽慰他，没事，今儿见到的就是你见过的最笨的学生。
偶大学还学过逻辑的，但是天生就是一缺乏逻辑的人，不点不明啊！这篇偶是舍命写的了。。。。

第二篇 觉得简单点。。。
One opinion: smarter kids
supportive evidence: top grades in primary shool

Opposite opinion: dumber kids
evidence: 1  teaching and testing system to produce top grades
               2   Michael Shayer's case (many flaws)
               flaw one: only reasoning ability considered (overgeneration)
                      two: 30years ago 1/5...  now 1/10  ( how many participants?)
                      three: same test but totally changing curriculum, methodology, skills, tasks. how to guarantee learners have the some reasoning ability?
                      four: boys outperformed girls 30 years ago<-- boys had more outdoor exercises (subjective analysis)
                              girls outperform boys now< --   boys have little acess to outdoor activity (what about girls?  they have the same amount of outdoor activity or more?
                      five: shooling focus from the able to the worst.( are participants the able or the worst or middle? any relations?)
                              
还是第三篇舒服啊
flaws
1. soybeans can or can not lower cholesterol?
2. consumers who are concerned about health will or will not concern lower cholesterol?
3. adding soybeans into the cereal will increase sales? (if other company have already done)?
4. Increasing sales can guarantee more profits？improve the health of consumers?

LovellaUID：2616552

愁A中~先支持再看！草木斑斑辛苦啦！

winning1030UID：2538401

支持！完整看过~

米饭袜子UID：2532172

Domestication is not normally reckoned good for a species’s intelligence.
All that grey matter is expensive to grow, so if you have an owner to do your thinking for you, then you do not need so much of it. Natural selection (not to mention deliberate selection by people) might therefore be expected to dumb domestic animals down.
（= __,=其实这点我一上来就迷惑了，natural selection怎么会是an owner to do your thinking 呢？我理解中的natural selection就是一个客观条件，是综合了各种因素以后发展而成的客观事实，至于selection不过是说各种生物是否能适应这个条件罢了，总不能说人类的进化是自然帮我们铺垫好的吧。。。。。。。）
Dogs, however, look like an exception to this rule. Some, such as herding sheepdogs, have been bred for tasks that seem to involve a lot of intelligence. More intriguingly, an experiment carried out in 2004 by Brian Hare, then at Harvard and now of Duke University in North Carolina, suggested that natural selection in the context of domestication had boosted dogs’ intelligence, too, by allowing them to understand human behaviour in a way that their ancestors, wolves, cannot. The latest study of the matter, however, suggests that is not the case after all, and that wolves, not dogs, are the clever ones.
从这两句话来分析本文的框架：
论点：狗和狼哪个更聪明？
前提：狼是狗的祖先（事实）
推理：如果狗更聪明-à人类的选择使狼进化了，变成了聪明狗-à人类选择是这样à自然地选择也应该是这样
如果狼更聪明-à说明人类的“选择”使狼退化了，成了笨狗-à人类的选择是这样à自然地选择也应该是这样
质疑：因为前面说Natural selection (not to mention deliberate selection by people) might therefore be expected to dumb domestic animals down.
我认为这里犯了一个逻辑错误，即，自然选择（如果按照文中的理解you have an owner to do your thinking for you,虽然我还是很困惑=___=）-----à人类选择，但我们不能进行反推。
即，即使你得出了狼或狗更聪明的结论也不能反推到自然选择是否使生物进化或退化的总结论上去，因为你的大背景是自然-à人类这么个过程。
也就是说，这里我就算探讨出来谁更聪明也不能得出文章开头的结论。
这里这个看似补充的括号内容是我抓到的后面推理的逻辑漏洞（也可能我又钻牛角了= =）

Dr Hare’s experiments involved showing his animals two upside-down cups, one of which covered food. A human would then gesture in some way at the cup covering the food. In theory, if the animal being tested was properly interpreting the gestures, it should have been lured to the object that the experimenter was indicating. And that is what Dr Hare found. Dogs selected the cup hiding the food far more than half the time, whereas the wolves he used for comparison got it right no more frequently than chance.
.
That led him to conclude that domestic dogs have evolved an ability to understand what their masters are up to by living among people for so long. Monique Udell of the University of Florida, however, begs to differ. She observed that Dr Hare’s wolves, though captive, had not been raised among humans, and wondered whether learning rather than evolution explained his observations. Her team therefore worked with a mixture of pet dogs, dogs from animal shelters that had had minimal interaction with people, and wolves raised by humans. They exposed their animals to an experiment similar to Dr Hare’s and came up with strikingly different results.
As they report in Animal Behaviour, the wolves outperformed both shelter dogs and pets. Indeed, six of the eight wolves followed human gestures perfectly in more than eight out of ten trials. Only three of eight pets were as successful as that and, as with Dr Hare’s wolves, none of the shelter dogs performed better than chance. Far from being dumb, then, wolves are smarter than dogs. You just have to bring 'em up proper.
下面再看这个谁更聪明的问题
H的实验：
实验组：dogs（被人类驯养的）
对照组：wolves（野生的，未被驯养的）
结果：狗成功的次数多
这个实验就给我们这么多信息就得出结论：狗因为跟人类生活了很久（被人类选择）变得聪明了
首先明确，以上所有都是事实，我们要分析这个结果和这个实验能不能支持结论，得出结论
质疑：
狗在这次试验中成功次数多（事实1）à狗比狼聪明（推论1）-                                                   \


                                      è人类选择使狼进化成聪明狗


狼是狗的祖先狗被人类选择而狼没有（事实2）à从狼到狗是人类选择的结果（推论2）/
首先对于推论1，为什么就凭这次试验说明狗比狼聪明了呢？首先它以能否懂得人类的guesture为聪明的标准就是值得怀疑的，因此，他应该多设立一些判断标准比如看谁最短时间内找到什么东西云云
对于推论2，这个，我是彻底纠结，从狼到狗明明包含有自然选择和人类选择双重过程，咋就被统一成人类选择了？？



(真是逼着俺往牛角上撞啊~~~~~~）


（已经崩溃了。。。。。。下面的就不分析了，这个我这味儿做不着是不是某草的意思。。。)

顺便顶

StefanaUID：2143510

支持！好贴~

家家☆yoonjaeUID：2646910

先谢谢米饭酱给加贝贝，MUA个 ^^

来甩我对Passage One的分析：

Domestication is not normally reckoned good for a species’s intelligence. 第一句话说明讨论的是domestication问题，因为驯养使得物种产生依赖并且懈怠自身的学习和适应能力，所以根据物竞天择说作者推断驯养的动物会变得愚蠢。作者认为狗是一个很典型的例子，它的祖先是狼，由于被人类驯养，因此变成了狗。因此狼与狗，就是domestication的before & after.于是作者认为，比较狼与狗的intelligence哪个更高，就能够得出domestication对species的影响是正面还是负面的。

Dr Hare的实验对象是pet dogs & wild wolves，实验内容是让animal根据人类的gestures找到那个藏着食物的杯子，实验结果是狗比狼更迅速，于是Dr Hare的结论是natural selection in the context of domestication had boosted dogs’ intelligence.

Monique Udell的实验对象是pet dogs & wild dogs & human raised wolves, 实验内容与Dr Hare相同，结果是狼比狗更迅速并且准确，于是Monique Udell的结论是wolves are smarter than dogs.

由于我们所要研究的是domestication对物种的影响，狼和狗作为Natural Selection下的产物，比较两者的intelligence对解释domestication的作用有建设性意义。需要明确一点，这里所提到的domestication并不是简单的家养，而是自然界一个长期选择的过程。（我的理解是这样，以区别于deliberate selection by people）Dr Hare实验中的pet dogs & wild wolves，比较两类事物要使其处于相同的状态下才有较准确可比性，由于pet dogs与人相处的时间远超过captive wolves，因此该动物的配合参与性等均不能同等看待，事实上就是我们常说的起点不一样，不具备可比性，由此得出的结论显然是不可靠的。而Monique Udell的实验对象中，pet dogs & human raised wolves，让狗和狼受到相同的作用影响，来比较它们的intelligence，显然要比pet dogs & wild wolves之间的比较更persuasive。
弱弱滴说。。是不是再加一组实验对象，野生的狼。。会更科学一点。。。囧。。。

funnyahauUID：2581081

就说下第一篇文章吧，开始读了一遍，云里雾里的，慢慢才明白点。。。
1.H的实验设计值得质疑：dog表现的比wolf好，可能有别的原因，eg：dog的嗅觉比wolf好，因此准确率高。所以H的实验设计时没有去处别的影响因素。
2。即使H的实验设计的正确，仅仅是因为对食物的判断更准确就能够说明dog了解master的所有想法？值得商榷。
3。M的实验中，列举出来的数据太少，作为统计数据来说，不具有说服力，样本数太少。

Virtual_ProUID：2560768

Logical process of Passage One
Domestication is not normally reckoned good for a specie’s intelligence.(TS) All that grey matter is expensive to grow, so if you have an owner to do your thinking for you, then you do not need so much of it.(support ts) Natural selection (not to mention deliberate selection by people) might therefore be expected to dumb domestic animals down.(support ts)


Dogs, however, look like an exception to this rule.(paragraph topic sentence, short for pts, exception, oppose ts) Some, such as herding sheepdogs, have been bred for tasks that seem to involve a lot of intelligence.(support pts) More intriguingly, an experiment carried out in 2004 by Brian Hare, then at Harvard and now of Duke University in North Carolina, suggested that natural selection in the context of domestication had boosted dogs’ intelligence, too, by allowing them to understand human behavior in a way that their ancestors, wolves, cannot.(support pts) The latest study of the matter, however, suggests that is not the case after all, and that wolves, not dogs, are the clever ones. (oppose pts, and support ts)
.
Dr Hare’s experiments involved showing his animals two upside-down cups, one of which covered food.(experiment) A human would then gesture in some way at the cup covering the food.
(experiment) In theory, if the animal being tested was properly interpreting the gestures, it should have been lured to the object that the experimenter was indicating.
(experiment) And that is what Dr Hare found.
(experiment) Dogs selected the cup hiding the food far more than half the time, whereas the wolves he used for comparison got it right no more frequently than chance.
(experiment result that support last paragraph topic sentence, lpts, and oppose ts)
.
That led him to conclude that domestic dogs have evolved an ability to understand what their masters are up to by living among people for so long.(conclusion of the experiment, and support the pts, oppose the ts) Monique Udell of the University of Florida, however, begs to differ.(oppose pts, support ts) She observed that Dr Hare’s wolves, though captive, had not been raised among humans, and wondered whether learning rather than evolution explained his observations.(experiment) Her team therefore worked with a mixture of pet dogs, dogs from animal shelters that had had minimal interaction with people, and wolves raised by humans.(experiment) They exposed their animals to an experiment similar to Dr Hare’s and came up with strikingly different results.(experiment result, oppose pts, and support ts)
As they report in Animal Behaviour, the wolves outperformed both shelter dogs and pets.(similar to the last one) Indeed, six of the eight wolves followed human gestures perfectly in more than eight out of ten trials. (similar to the last one) Only three of eight pets were as successful as that and, as with Dr Hare’s wolves, none of the shelter dogs performed better than chance. (similar to the last one) Far from being dumb, then, wolves are smarter than dogs. (similar to the last one) You just have to bring 'em up proper. (similar to the last one)

在逐句分析本文的逻辑后，发现本文的论证结构实在是太混乱了，穿插着正面和反面的论证在不停的交换观点，用例子反驳自己的段落观点，又用下一个段落观点反驳上一个例子。具体见文中标注，红色的表示支持总论点，浅蓝色表示反对，深蓝表示其他。感觉就是只有两个不同观点，却因为没有分开论述导致逻辑混乱不堪，让人不能忍受。


PS：看完了草木的整篇文章，再回头看自己的评价，虽然可能有点武断和幼稚，但是居然没有攻击作者的实验，很庆幸，虽然不知道是自己不仔细，还是喜欢攻击逻辑结构。

cjluUID：2448066

终于看完了！！！TT
嗯，整体上说的就是关于survey的态度。支持草木观点，说白了其实就是攻击逻辑链接点。
前面两篇我看出来是Eco里的了~啊哈哈……其实我脑抽了已经~
段落大意就不贴了 改天如果还有时间再看一遍再说吧^^
不过草木的精神还是相当领会了的^^

尾羽UID：2482591

对于passage one：
---------------------------------------------------------------------
这篇文章折腾了我好几个小时，先是原文把我看晕了，后来又被自己的分析弄晕了·~~真的是很混乱啊！！~~还是觉得有些意思没表达清楚
拙见请海涵。。。欢迎拍砖
虽然领会了草木大人的意思，“庖丁解牛，由韧始”，但是真的做起来，很容易把“韧”（链接）跟“肉”（survey）混在一起。
另外“All that grey matter is expensive to grow, so if you have an owner to do your thinking for you, then you do not need so much of it.”这句话的上下文作用和意思仍然不太理解啊~intelligence和grey matter有什么关系吗？
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
观点一：Domestication一般都不会被认为对物种的智力进化有好处（换句话说，D有可能是有坏处的）
观点二：狗比狼聪明（反驳观点一）：
1.牧羊犬被繁殖用来完成一些任务
2.Dr.Hare的实验：
（1）过程：让狗和野狼，在实验人员同样给出gesture的情况下，找到两只倒扣的杯子中，有食物的那一只。
（2）结果，狗比野狼所用时间快很多。
（3）结论：狗在长时间与人生活在一起，使他们演化出懂得主人意图的能力
观点三：狼比狗聪明（反驳观点二）：
1.指出，Dr.Hare的实验中，狼是抓来的，并没有被人类饲养过。这会导致他的实验结果有可能不正确：究竟是因为学习还是进化使得狗比狼找的快。
2.Monique Udell的实验：
（1）过程：用宠物狗、shelter dogs（成长中最大限度减少与人接触的狗）、被人养大的狼来作与Dr.Hare内容相同的实验。
（2）结果：成绩最好-（家狼>pets>shelter dogs）-成绩最坏
--------------------------------------------------------------
分析：
1.intelligence的定义没有给出。有太多被人养大的野生动物，在放生之前都要做野化训练，否则他们在野生环境下都无法存活。一个动物在被人驯养之后，连最基本的生存能力都缺失了，我们能说它是因为domesticated之后，more intelligent了吗？而H的实验结果却是狗比狼快，只能说明在人的选择中，狗比狼更适应人类环境中的生存状态，这也不能说明狗比狼聪明。何况这个“聪明”的概念在文中本来就不清楚。MU的实验在没有确定怎样才是intelligent的前提下，也是无法做出准确结论。

2.H的实验本身就不能说明“狗比狼聪明”。（1）因为野狼和狗的比较是没有可比性的。要让野狗和野狼比，家狗和家狼比，才可能有可比性。（2）牧羊犬的例子就恰恰证明了，狗的所谓“聪明”是有特殊领域的（比如牧羊），也就是说，完全有可能，在某些领域狗是不如狼“聪明”的，而H的实验，没有排除这种可能性。
3.MU对H的实验提出：“wondered whether learning rather than evolution explained his observations”，而在MU的实验里，虽然对别人wonder了，但自己的实验也没有解决究竟是learning还是evolution的问题。如果是evolution,那实验对照组里势必应该有野狼参与，因为野狼是evolution的源头。因此，MU的实验也无法推翻H的实验结论。

4.另外，
如果，H的实验结论是准确的，Dom使得狼在进化中成了更聪明的狗，那么被Dom的狼为何成绩最好？
如果，MU的实验结论是准确的，那么又如何解释野狼的成绩比狗的差？
如果认为两个实验结果都是正确的，并把它们放在一起（因为这两个实验除了参与的动物不同外，其他都一样，所以我觉得实验结果可以放一起），是否会得出实验结果：成绩最好-（家狼>pets>shelter dogs>野狼）-成绩最坏，那么这又应作何解？（H、MU实验结论就都不成立了）