2. 职称英语
  3. Claim: The best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone with an o

Claim: The best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone with an o

游客2025-02-24  52
问题 Claim: The best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint.
Reason: Only by being forced to defend an idea against the doubts and contrasting views of others does one really discover the value of that idea.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
选项
答案 The claim that the best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint is a compelling one. The reason given for this claim is that only through defending an idea against all possible criticism does the idea gain true and tested merit. Indeed, it is this very reason which forms the basis of academic scholarship: by debating and discussing opposing ideas in a collective discourse, we are able to home in upon those ideas which are truly of value. The concept that an argument should be based on sound principles that convince even those who are biased against it falls in line with the foundation of our post-Enlightenment society of reason.
Consider, for example, two disparate political parties with vastly different approaches to governing a country. If, in this tense political climate, a representative from one party raises an argument which she can defend openly in front of a group of her opponents, the value of the idea becomes clear. Say, perhaps, that a representative proposes a new strategy for increasing employment which falls much more in line with her own party’s philosophy than with the other party’s. By arguing with representatives from the opposing party, and by addressing each and every counterpoint that they raise to her new employment policy, the potential flaws in her idea are laid utterly bare. Furthermore, the logic and reason of her points must be measured in the balance against the biases and emotions of her listeners. If after such a conversation she is able to convince the opposing party that her proposal holds some merit and might actually be beneficial for the citizens of their country, then its value becomes far more evident than if she were a dictator who had merely administered her vision unchecked. It is apparent from this example that the ideology of convincing others with opposing viewpoints is pervasive in the way many governments and institutions are structured, such as our own—through checks and balances, public discourse, and productive disagreement.
The strongest reason for the excerpt’s validity is found by comparing the claim to its reverse. Imagine a scenario where one is asked to present one’s argument, but the group of people to whom one is presenting already espouse those very ideas: "preaching to the choir" is the ubiquitous idiom we use to describe this phenomenon. In this situation, it becomes irrelevant whether or not a particular argument holds those indicators of merit: logic and reason grounded in evidence. Even the most inflammatory or tenuous arguments would not be exposed for their true hollowness by a group who were unwilling or unable to question the speaker. The "choir" presents no challenge to the argument, and in doing so the argument’s merit cannot be tested. In fact, it is this lack of challenge which can lead to stagnation both in the governing of nations—consider, as mentioned above, dictators who eliminate the possibility of dissent—and in academic discourse, where complacency with prevailing ideas can halt the creation of new and possibly contradictory findings. For this, we see that being forced to defend an idea against the doubt of others does indeed bring out its true worth; in the opposing situation, whether or not the argument holds intrinsic merit, this merit cannot be tested or discerned in any way.
There is, however, one modification which makes the claim more complete. The claim suggests that the best test for an argument is its ability to convince others, which may lead to the inference that an argument which cannot convince others holds no value. However, this inference is not true, and here lies the caveat to the claim. Throughout history there are ideas or arguments that are perhaps too modern, beyond their times, and in these situations those who oppose them refuse to believe an argument that is later on discovered to be entirely true and valid. Imagine, for example, Galileo’s attempts to convince his contemporaries that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not vice versa. In the scientific climate of his time, others simply couldn’t accept Galileo’s reasoned argument despite his multiple attempts to convince them. In this instance, the value of Galileo’s argument actually could not be tested by defending it in front of others. The value only became apparent later on, when other scientists began to repeat and understand the insightful calculations that Galileo had made much earlier. So while convincing the opposition is certainly one mark of a good argument, it is not always the ultimate test.
In conclusion, the examples discussed reveal that the worth of an argument can be measured through its ability to withstand dissent and doubt. As long as an argument is not deemed invalid by the mere fact that no others are persuaded by it, it is reasonable to claim that the best way to test an argument is to attempt to convince those who oppose it.
解析 In addressing the specific task directions, this outstanding response presents a cogent examination of the issue and conveys meaning skillfully. After stating a clear position in agreement with both the claim and its reason, the writer emphasizes the significance of the latter: "It is this very reason which forms the basis of academic scholarship: by debating and discussing opposing ideas in a collective discourse, we are able to home in upon those ideas which are truly of value." Skillfully, the writer demonstrates the validity of the claim by comparing arguments presented to different audiences. First, a political representative defends a proposal against the arguments of the opposing party. Here, the proposal is fully tested "through checks and balances, public discourse, and productive disagreement." In contrast, the writer considers a similar presentation of ideas to a like-minded group("preaching to the choir")and concludes that, in the absence of discourse or dissent, the merit of an idea cannot be determined. Finally, the writer reexamines the claim and finds an exception to it(the rejection by his contemporaries of Galileo’s reasoned argument), and modifies the claim as follows: "So while convincing the opposition is certainly one mark of a good argument, it is not always the ultimate test." Examples and reasons are both compelling and persuasive, and language and syntax are consistently precise and effective, as in the following: "In fact, it is this lack of challenge which can lead to stagnation both in the governing of nations—consider, as mentioned above, dictators who eliminate the possibility of dissent—and in academic discourse, where complacency with prevailing ideas can halt the creation of new and possibly contradictory findings." Because of its superior facility, fluent and precise presentation of ideas, and clear and insightful position, this response clearly earns a score of 6.
转载请注明原文地址:http://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3971503.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)