应该怎样筛选和安排攻击点呢

simplelife1211UID: 2669353

这两天看gter里各种帖子，发现一个问题。一篇argue的逻辑链常常很复杂，随便举个例子

ARGUMENT47 - Scientists studying historical weather patterns have discovered that in the mid-sixth century, Earth suddenly became significantly cooler. Although few historical records survive from that time, some accounts found both in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures. Either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth could have created a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere that would have been capable of blocking enough sunlight to lower global temperatures significantly. A large meteorite collision, however, would probably create a sudden bright flash of light, and no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash. Some surviving Asian historical records of the time, however, mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. Therefore, the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption.

这里的逻辑链就是 天冷<--太阳昏暗所致<--尘埃云所致<--尘埃云由火山或者陨石导致<--陨石不可能<--火山可能, 所以是火山
每个点都存在论据不足的问题, 对它们本身及它们之间的逻辑关系一一进行批驳才能让作者的论点站不住脚
但是在一篇至多500字的argument里把每一点都写到是不可能的，这样反而会影响论述的质量
那么究竟应该攻击哪些点呢
之前看到一篇贴《argument就该这样写》,里面介绍文章最重要的攻击点是结论与其直接相关的前提，那么这里就是 天冷<--太阳昏暗所致。贴里又介绍最重要的攻击点应该放在第一条攻击，但是最重要的攻击点往往是逻辑链的最后环节，如果把这作为第一点攻击，怎样保持所有攻击点之间的逻辑顺序呢

草木也知愁UID: 2487572

攻击的不是点本身 而是点与点之间的衔接

顺序的排布 没有一定之规 也没有绝对正确
你去选择一种你认为rater可以最舒服的读懂 而且你可以最娴熟驾驭的就可以了

simplelife1211UID: 2669353

2# 草木也知愁
点和点之间的连接好像也有很多啊,哪些是一定要的呢

米饭袜子UID: 2532172

一定要的就是最主要最致命的错误

simplelife1211UID: 2669353

4# 米饭袜子
那其他的是不是想写哪个就哪个

米饭袜子UID: 2532172

哪个你觉得能发展开深入谈或者哪个写起来更有话说就写哪个

simplelife1211UID: 2669353

6# 米饭袜子
多谢斑竹指教