《技術(shù)與商務(wù)交流英語(yǔ)（第二版）》課件Chapter 13 Technical Argumentation

ObjectivesLearnhowtodotechnicalargumentation:OrganizationofargumentationMethodsofargumentationAvoidinglogicalfallaciesPurposeoftechnicalargumentationThepurposeofatechnicalargumentistohelpreadersmakeadecision.Wheneveryouareexercisingyourprofessionaljudgmentorexpressinganopinion,youwillneedthetechniquesofargumentationtoconvinceyourreaderstoadoptyourpointofview.I.OrganizationofArgumentationAnargumentsupportsonemajoropinion,whichisoftencalledthemajorproposition（主要命題、大前提）orthesisstatement（論題）.Inturn,themajorpropositionissupportedbyaseriesofminorpropositions（次要命題、小前提）,whicharealsoopinions.Finally,theminorpropositionsaresupportedbyevidence,whichisusuallyverifiablefactsandstatementsfromrecognizedauthorities.majorpropositionminorpropositionevidenceevidenceminorpropositionevidenceAnexampleabouthowtoconstructanargumentTopic:whethershouldvoluntaryeuthanasia自愿安樂死belegalized?

Youmayorganizeyourargumentinthefollowingway.1.Majorproposition主要命題Themajorpropositionisthepointyouaremakingaboutthesubject.Itisthestatementofthemainideaoftheargument.Itshouldbeexplicitlystated,andisusuallyplacedatthebeginningoftheargument.Supposethatyouhavedonealotofinvestigationoneuthanasiaandyouhavesufficientevidenceagainstvoluntaryeuthanasia.Themajorpropositionofyourargumentwouldbe“voluntaryeuthanasiashouldnotbelegalized（志愿安樂死不應(yīng)合法化）.”

2.MinorPropositions次要命題Minorpropositionsareopinionsthatsupportthemajorproposition.Theyare,infact,subtopicsandareoftenusedassubtitlesintheargument.Todeterminewhichminorpropositionsyoucanuseinyourargument,youhavetoanalyzethemajorproposition.Youshouldexaminetheissuefromdifferentpointsofviewbypartition,bycomparison,orbycauseandeffect.2.MinorPropositions次要命題ForMajorproposition“voluntaryeuthanasiashouldnotbelegalized.”youmaydevelopminorpropositionsasfollows:Euthanasiawillnotbelimitedtopatientswithterminalillness.Voluntaryeuthanasiawillbecomenon-voluntary.Euthanasiaisaviolationofhumanrights.3.Evidence證據(jù)Afterdeterminingtheminorpropositions,youmustdoresearchontheseissuestocollectenoughevidence.Evidenceincludesthefactsandopinionsthatyouusetosupportyourpropositions.Thecommonlyusedevidenceinanargumentisasfollows.Universaltruthsandfacts.客觀真理和事實(shí)Commonlyrecognizedtheoriesandprinciples.公認(rèn)的理論和原則Concreteexamples.具體事例Statisticaldata.統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)Citationsfromrecognizedauthorities.來自公認(rèn)權(quán)威的引證

ArgumentOrganization

ArgumentOrganizationII.MethodsofArgumentationAfterorganizingyourarguments,youshouldpresenttheminaconvincingwaytoensurethatyouraudiencewillacceptyourpointofview.Thebasicmethodsofargumentationare:inductivemethodsdeductivemethods.1.InductiveMethod歸納法Theinductivemethodisawayofreasoningfromparticularfactstogeneralconclusions.Itisamethodofdiscoveringandtestingtheinferencesorhypothesisthatyoucandrawfromyourinformation.Inductionisthechiefwayforpeopletoestablishcausality—thatAcausesB.Theinductiveprocessconsistsofthreesteps:Lookingattheevidence.Makingahypothesistoexplaintheevidence.Investigatingtoseewhetherthehypothesisfitstheevidence.Exampleofinductiveargument歸納論證實(shí)例Inthefollowingexample,theauthorarguesinductivelyforthepropositionthateuthanasiawillnotbelimitedtopatientswithterminalillness.Theargumentissupportedbytestingthenullhypothesis原假設(shè)、零假設(shè)（未經(jīng)證實(shí)的假設(shè)）thateuthanasiawillbelimitedtopatientswithterminalillnessagainstevidence.通過對(duì)照證據(jù)對(duì)原假設(shè)“安樂死將僅限用于晚期病人”進(jìn)行檢驗(yàn)來支持這一論點(diǎn)。Euthanasiawillnotbelimitedtopatientswithterminalillness.(安樂死將不會(huì)局限于晚期疾病患者)Voluntaryeuthanasiaissaidtobeanoptionforthosewithterminalillness.Whatterminalillnessis,however,ishardtodefine.Somedoctorsstatethat“terminal”meansthatdeathisexpectedwithinsixmonthsorless.AccordingtoJackKevorkinan,thedoctorwhoassistspeopleforeuthanasiaintheUnitedStates,terminalillnesswas“anydiseasethatcurtails（縮短）lifeevenforaday.”Thisdefinitionhasextendedeuthanasiatothosewhoarenot“terminallyill”.AutopsiesbroughtstunningrevelationsaboutKevorkian’sclients:manyhavenotbeenterminallyill,andsomewereevenwithoutphysicaldisease.EvidenceDr.L.J.Dragovic,theOaklandCountychiefmedicalexaminer（首席驗(yàn)尸官）,saysthatonly16ofthe69clientsheautopsied（驗(yàn)尸）hadbeenterminallyill;48othershadbeensufferingfromanonterminaldisease（非晚期疾?。?Intheremainingfivecases,Dragovicfoundnoanatomicalevidenceofdiseaseatall.（尸檢未發(fā)現(xiàn)任何疾病。）Eveninthecasewhereaspecificlifeexpectancy(likesixmonths)isreferredto,medicalexpertsacknowledgethatitisvirtuallyimpossibletopredictthelifeexpectancyofaparticularpatient.Somepeoplediagnosedasterminallyillremainalivelongafterbeingdiagnosed.Ihaveafriendwithlivercancerwhohasoutlivedthedoctor’sdiagnosisforfiveyearsandisstillhavinganactivelife.Withtherapidadvancementofmedicalsciences,newtreatmentwillbefoundforsomeso-calledterminalillness.Therefore,euthanasia,ifitweretobelegalized,wouldnotbelimitedtothosewhoareterminallyill,and“terminalillness”shouldnotbecomeaconceptorcriteriontodeterminepeople’slifeanddeath.Thedeductiveprocessofthisargumentgoeslikethis:Evidence:(1)Of69clientswhocommittedassistedsuicide,only16wereterminallyill.(2)Somepeoplediagnosedasterminallyillremainalivelongafterbeingdiagnosed.Nullhypothesis:Euthanasiawillbelimitedtopatientswithterminalillness.Testingthehypothesisagainsttheevidence:Theevidenceprovesthataesthesiahasextendedtothosewhoarenotterminallyill,andsomepeoplediagnosedasterminallyillremainaliveyearsafterthediagnosis.Thus,thenullhypothesisisrejected.2.DeductiveMethod演繹法Whereastheinductivemethodisreasoningfromthespecifictothegeneral,thedeductivemethodisreasoningfromthegeneraltothespecific.Indeductivereasoning,youstartwithageneralprinciple—themajorpremise;youthenapplyittoafact—theminorpremise;andfinallyyoudrawaconclusionconcerningthefact.SyllogismThetypicalformofasyllogism三段論、演繹推理thatcanbestillustratedeductivereasoningisasfollows.MajorPremise:Mammalsarewarm-bloodedvertebrateanimals.MinorPremise:Awhaleisamammal.Conclusion:Therefore,awhaleisawarm-bloodedvertebrateanimal.ExampleofReasoningbyDeductiveMethod演繹論證實(shí)例Euthanasiaisaviolationofhumanrights.安樂死是對(duì)人權(quán)的侵犯Euthanasiaadvocatorsstatethatinafreedemocraticsociety,individualshavearighttomaketheirowndecisionsonmattersoftheirownconcern,andeuthanasiasavestheburdenofthefamilyandthesociety.Heretheeuthanasiaadvocatorsemphasizepeople’srighttodeath,buttheyneglectpeople’sotherrights.TheUnitedNationsUniversalDeclarationofHumanRightsstatesthatallhumanbeingsarebornfreeandequalindignityandrights.Allpeopleareequallyentitledtocivilandpoliticalrights,ofwhichpeople’srighttolifeisfundamental.Ifthemedicaltreatmenttoapatienthasbecomeafinancialburdentohisorherfamily,itisoursocialsystemthathastobeimprovedsothatbettermedicalcarecanbeprovidedforeverymemberofthesociety,insteadofpressuringthepatienttowardseuthanasiaconsent.Ifitisnotso,itwouldthesameassaying“treattherichandkillthepoor.”Insteadofpromotingpeople’srightsandfreedom,euthanasiaactuallyreflectstheinequalityofthesocietyandisaviolationofhumanrights.Thesyllogismusedinthisparagraphgoessomewhatlikethis:MajorPremise:TheUnitedNationsUniversalDeclarationofHumanRightsstatesthatallhumanbeingsarebornfreeandequalindignityandrights.MinorPremise:Therighttolifeisthebasichumanright.Conclusion:Euthanasiadeprivespeople’srighttolifeoneconomicconcern,soitisaviolationofhumanrights.3.DealingwithCounterarguments(反駁、抗辯)Onewaytostrengthenyourargumentistoanticipateandaddresscounterargumentsorobjections.Byconsideringwhatsomeonewhodisagreeswithyourpositionmighthavetosayaboutyourargument,youshowthatyouhavethoroughunderstandingoftheissueyouarediscussing.ExampleDealingwithCounterargumentsVoluntaryeuthanasiawillbecomenon-voluntary.(自愿安樂死將變成非自愿安樂死)Euthanasiaadvocatorsdefinevoluntaryeuthanasiaasaquickandpeacefuldeathwithmedicalassistanceintheinterestsandattherequestofthepatient.Patientswhoenduregreatphysicalandmentalsufferingsfromseriousillness,however,maynotbecompetenttogiveareliableinformedconsent(知情同意).Forexample,JanetAdkins,a54-year-oldwomanintheearlystagesofAlzheimer’sdisease,wasquestionedbyDr.Kevorkianforeuthanasia.Attimes,heseemedtoguideheranswers,andonseveraloccasionssheappearedconfused.MedicalexpertslaternotedthatAdkins’mentaldifficultiesshouldhaveindicatedtoKevorkianthatshemightnothavebeencapableofprovidinginformedconsenttoherdeath.Nevertheless,Kevorkianperformedtheassistedsuicideonhertwodayslater.Ontheotherhand,emotionalandpsychologicalpressurescouldbecomeoverpoweringfordepressedordependentpeople.Ifthechoiceofeuthanasiaisconsideredasgoodasadecisiontoreceivecare,thepatientmayfeelguiltyfornotchoosingdeath.Financialconsiderations,addedtotheconcernabout“beingaburden,”couldserveaspowerfulforcesthatwouldleadapersonto“choose”euthanasiaorassistedsuicideagainsthisorherwill.Basedontheevidence,itcanbeconcludedthatvoluntaryeuthanasiawillbecomenon-voluntaryeuthanasia.ExampleanalysisInordertosupportthepropositionthatvoluntaryeuthanasiawillbecomenon-voluntary,theauthorfirstpresentshisopponents’definitionofvoluntaryeuthanasia.Thenhegoesaheadtorefutethedefinitionwithfactsthatpatientswithmentalsufferingarenotabletoprovideareliablevoluntaryconsentandthatpatientsunderfinancialdifficultiesmaychooseeuthanasiaagainsttheirownwill.Byprovingthefalsehoodofhisopponents’argument,theauthormayconvincethereadertoaccepthisproposition.4.SoundArgument(合理論證)Throughoutanyargument,youshouldappealtoreasonratherthanemotion.Inmosttechnicalwritingsituations,anappealtoemotionwillmakeyourcaseimmediatelysuspicious.Neveruseabuse,sarcasm,exaggeration,orfierceattacksinanargument.III.AvoidingLogicalFallacies(避免邏輯謬論)Theargumentitselfmustbesoundandreasonable;thereshouldbelogicalconnectionsbetweentheclaimandthesupport.Eachpropositionshouldlogicallyfollowthepreviousone,withoutanyleapsoffaithorunidentifiedassumptions.Ifanylinkinthechainofyourargumentisflawed,theentireargumentmayfallapart.FactsaboutfallaciesFallaciesaredefectsthatweakenarguments.Itisimportanttorealizetwothingsaboutfallacies.First,fallaciousargumentsarequitecommonandmayappearfairlypersuasive,atleasttocasualreadersorlisteners.Youcanfinddozensofexamplesoffallaciousreasoninginnewspapers,advertisements,andothersources.Second,itissometimeshardtoevaluatewhetheranargumentisfallacious.1.HastyGeneralization以偏概全

Ahastygeneralizationisaconclusionbasedoninsufficientorunrepresentativeevidence.(以偏概全是指將結(jié)論基于非充分或非典型證據(jù)之上。)Forexample:Spiralorcurvedbacilliweredemonstratedinspecimensfromtwomalepatientswithactivechronicgastritis.Itcanbeconcludedthatthespiralbacilliarethepathogenyofchronicgastritis.在兩個(gè)男性活動(dòng)性慢性胃炎患者的標(biāo)本中發(fā)現(xiàn)了螺旋（即彎曲）桿菌?？梢缘贸鼋Y(jié)論，螺旋桿菌是慢性胃炎的病原。ExampleanalysisInthisexample,specimensfromtwomalepatientsdonotprovidesufficientevidencefromwhichtogeneralizeaboutthepathogenyofchronicgastritis.Ontheotherhand,theevidenceisunrepresentativebecauseitexcludedfemalepatients.Hastygeneralizationisoftenrecognizablethankstotheuseofwordssuchas“all,”“always,”“everybody”,or“none.”2.NonSequitur不當(dāng)結(jié)論（無邏輯聯(lián)系的推論）NonsequiturisLatinfor“itdoesnotfollow.”Anonsequituroccurswhenthecauseandtheconclusionarenotlogicallyconnected.Anonsequiturcommonlyconsistsoftwoparts,anopeningstatementandaseeminglylogicalconclusionofthatstatement.當(dāng)結(jié)論與起因無邏輯聯(lián)系就會(huì)導(dǎo)致不當(dāng)結(jié)論。不當(dāng)結(jié)論有兩部分構(gòu)成：前提陳述和不當(dāng)結(jié)論。ExampleofNonSequiturIamoldenoughtofightformycountry;therefore,I’moldenoughtosmokeanddrink.ThetrafficfatalityrateontheGermanautobahn(高速公路)iscomparativelylowwiththespeedlimitsofeightymilesanhourandmore.ThisprovesthatChinacouldsafelyraiseitsspeedlimits.德國(guó)高速公路的限速在80英里和80英里以上，而車禍死亡率比較低。這說明中國(guó)提高其限速是安全的。ExampleanalysisTheconclusionsofthesentencesmightbetrue,butnoneofthestatementsshowsanydirectconnectionbetweenclaimsandtheconclusions.Asinthesecondexample,theGermansmayfollowthetrafficregulationsmorestrictly,ortheGermanautobahnmayhavebetterconditionsthantheChineseexpressway.Thesesentencesreflectsimplisticthinkingratherthanlogicalreasoning.3.BeggingtheQuestion訴諸公眾（以假設(shè)作為論據(jù)的辯論，回避問題實(shí)質(zhì)）Beggingthequestionmeanstotakesomethingforgrantedwithoutproof.Itassumesthattheaudiencessharebasicassumptionsandbeliefswiththearguerwheninfacttheydonot.Whenyoufindsomeoneusingsuchphrasesas“Everyoneknows,”“Weallagree,”“It’sobviousthat,”orsomeonetryingtopassoffastatementthatisnomorethananopinionasafact,you’refacingaquestion-beggingargument.訴諸公眾是指觀點(diǎn)持有人假想聽眾和自己持有相同觀點(diǎn)而實(shí)際并非如此，這是想當(dāng)然的邏輯謬誤?！氨M人皆知”，“所有人都同意”，“再明顯不過”之類的表達(dá)，與將個(gè)人觀點(diǎn)當(dāng)做事實(shí)的行為都屬于訴諸公眾。ExamplesofBeggingtheQuestionEveryoneknowsthatthe2000swillbeapoortimetogointomedicinebecausegovernmentregulationisruiningtheprofession.人人都知道21世紀(jì)不是干醫(yī)療的好時(shí)期，因?yàn)檎囊?guī)定毀了這一行業(yè)。SincealleducatedpeoplenowknowEnglishbecauseitistheacceptedinternationallanguage,collegestudentsintheUnitedStatesdonotneedtolearnanotherlanguage.ExampleanalysisInthefirstexample,theargueristryingtopassoffaclaimasafactbyresorting“everyoneknows”.(通過使用“人人都知道”試圖把主張冒充為事實(shí))Theauthorshouldprovidealotofevidencetosupporttheclaimbeforereachingtheconclusion.Inthesecondexample,theassertionthatalleducatedpeoplenowknowEnglishisinaccurate.Englishisindeedtheacceptedinternationallanguageforpilots,mariners,andscientists,butmostofthepeopleintheworldcannotreadorspeakit.Therefore,bothargumentsbegthequestion.4.FalseAnalogy類比失當(dāng)Analogyisapart-by-partcomparisonofthesimilaritiesbetweenthingsthatareotherwisedissimilar.Analogiescanbeinvaluableinhelpingreaderstounderstandabstractorelusiveideas難以捉摸的andconcepts.類比是指將不同事物之間相同的部分進(jìn)行比較以幫助讀者理解抽象、難以捉摸的概念。ExampleofFalseAnalogyGunsarelikehammers.Theyarebothtoolswithmetalpartsthatcouldbeusedtokillsomeone.Yetitwouldberidiculoustorestrictthepurchaseofhammers.Andsorestrictionsonpurchasinggunsareequallyridiculous.ExampleanalysisAlthoughgunsandhammerssharecertainfeatures,suchashavingmetalparts,beingtools,andbeingpotentiallyusefulforviolence,thesefeaturesarenottheonesatstakeindecidingwhethertorestrictguns.Rather,werestrictgunsbecausetheycaneasilybeusedtokilllargenumbersofpeopleatadistance.Thisisafeaturehammersdonotshare,becauseitwouldbehardtokillacrowdofpeoplewithahammer.Thus,theanalogyisfalse,andsoistheargumentbasedonit.5.Either/OrArgument虛假兩分Either/orargumentisalsocalledfalsedilemmaorthefallacyofinsufficientoptions.Itisafaultyreasoningthatimpliesonemustchoosebetweenonlytwooptions—goodorbad,rightorwrong,moralorimmoral,andsoon.Thisisanotherformofsimplisticreasoningthatexplainscomplexissuesinadistortedwaysoastoattacktheopposition.虛假兩份又稱錯(cuò)誤兩難或選擇不足謬誤。該錯(cuò)誤推理只提供好或壞、對(duì)或錯(cuò)、道德或非道德兩種選擇。該推理將復(fù)雜事物簡(jiǎn)單化以曲解事實(shí)攻擊對(duì)方。ExampleofEither/OrArgumentThechoiceisbetweenclean,inexpensivenuclearenergyanddirty,expensivefossilfuels.Therearetwoki