2. 职称英语
  3. The best test of an argument is the argument’s ability to convince someone with

The best test of an argument is the argument’s ability to convince someone with

游客2024-01-12  12
问题 The best test of an argument is the argument’s ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
选项
答案     To bestow an argument, idea, contention or assertion with value, we must attempt to persuade those who hold contrasting views. Once we manage to convince our opponents, our argument seemingly gains fresh significance. This inclination to persuade others with our ideas presumably derives from the action embodied in the verb "argue": to persuade people with relevant reasons that we are correct. While this might be one way to prove our argument’s validity and value, we do not always need to resort to this method. Additionally, sometimes attempts to persuade might even prove futile.
    To begin with, I must express my appreciation for the reason part of this issue. It is exactly at the moment when we are forced to defend an idea against doubts and contrasting views that we begin to form a comprehensive understanding of the idea’s value. It is also at such a moment that we should grasp the opportunity to show our rivals the advantages of our argument and earn their approval. This perspective is emphasized by how a debate takes place. In a debate, speakers strive to elucidate the advantages or the disadvantages of an issue in order to convince their opponents, as well as the audience of their point of view. It is also during this phase that the audience comes to establish a holistic understanding of the topic and its value. In addition, even though the debaters may not be utterly convinced by their opponents, they ultimately benefit from questioning their opponents and defending their own views, and further build up an unprecedented understanding of their argument’s value.
    However, tenable as the assertion may hold in most circumstances that an idea receives value by overshadowing its opponents, I contend that the value of an argument can be also realized in other ways. Consequently, this raises doubt about the issue’s reason. Since we do not argue exclusively to disprove our rivals, but also to clarify our own principles, or support allegations, we do not always have to start a battle in which one argument is bound to knock down another. Academic papers serve as a simple but persuasive example. It is not difficult to find out that not all the articles we read, write or cite attempt to disprove others, but in more circumstances concentrate on either clarification of the methodologies the paper itself utilizes, or on supplementary explanation to similar studies. One semester I read a series of articles written by archeologists, historians and anthropologists regarding ancient Chinese rituals. Despite their contrasting arguments, these scholars did not focus on discrediting each other’s work. On the contrary, they simply offer different interpretations of the same issue. The value of these papers is therefore achieved through their interpretations rather than through contention between the authors.
    What is more, the writer’s over-optimistic attitude is betrayed in the claim of the issue, which is supported by an unsubstantiated assumption: everyone can be convinced by an opposing viewpoint. This assumption further theorizes that an absolute truth exists, or to put it in another way: everything can be explained in only one way. Clearly, this is not true. The example previously discussed about three different interpretations of one issue support my opinion. Since academic research is based on different methodologies, scholars can never be truly convinced by each other; otherwise they would have used identical systems but not diverse ones. In addition, in some circumstances, the superficial debate between two arguments actually reveals an irreconcilable conflict, which concerns more fundamental factors, such as benefits. For exemplifications, we can look at strife between political parties all over the world. Due to the irreconcilable contention about respective interests, their quarrels never cease, and probably no one can foretell the day when they will actually convince each other.
    To sum up, while I partly agree with the issue’s reason, I reserve my approval of both the claim and its assumption. That is to say, the value of an argument may be realized through debate with someone holding a contrasting viewpoint, yet we cannot rely on that to always be true. (677 words)
解析     这道题目本身的内容比较抽象，如果单纯考虑支持或者反对，很容易陷入无话可说的窘境。为了充实文章内容，我们要做的事情就是考虑敌方观点。例如本题我们可以试着思考，为什么说服别人有可能是测试一个观点的最好方法呢?大家最容易想到的或许是，当我们尝试用一个观点去说服对立观点时，确实能发现这个观点的价值。辩论赛作为一个常见的例子，很好地支持了这个观点。因为辩论赛的双方都是在尝试说服对方和观众的过程中发现自身观点的价值。因此我们在文章开头部分赞同了敌方观点。
    然而，要认识并实现一个观点的价值，并不总需要试图用它驳倒对立的观点。从这个层面上讲，文章是要压制和反对敌方观点的。例如，我们经常遇到的学术论文就并不总以攻击或者说服观点相反的论文为写作目的，而更多的时候，我们写论文是为了阐明自己的理论或者方法论，或者深化、支持我们的同盟者的观点。在这里，文章列举了作者在学习中遇到的一篇关于中国古代宗教礼仪的文章。这个事例非常贴近生活，并不是所谓的“名人名例”，但依然能很好地支持文章的观点。
    最后，我们对题目进行深挖，满足ETs对于题目分析insightful的要求。我们发现，题目所依赖的假设其实是有问题的：“所有对手都能够被说服”；或者说， “所有事情只能用一种方式来解释”。事实并非如此，在这里，文章又诉诸于之前所提到的宗教礼仪的文章，指出：很多论文虽然讨论的话题是类似的，但使用的方法论却是不同的，因此这些论文的作者从一定层面上讲并不能完全说服其他人，亦或是被其他人说服。在这里，文章对相同的例子进行了不同侧面的解析，展示出批判性思维的辩证的特点，是一种高级的论证技巧，值得大家在冲击作文高分的过程中模仿。另外，有一些表面上的不同实则是掩盖着更加深层次的不可调和的矛盾，比如不同政党之间的无休止的斗争。像这样的诸多观点，是很难被彼此说服的。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3356935.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)