《技术与商务交流英语（第二版）》课件Chapter 13 Technical Argumentation

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

Youmayorganizeyourargumentinthefollowingway.1.Majorproposition主要命题Themajorpropositionisthepointyouaremakingaboutthesubject.Itisthestatementofthemainideaoftheargument.Itshouldbeexplicitlystated,andisusuallyplacedatthebeginningoftheargument.Supposethatyouhavedonealotofinvestigationoneuthanasiaandyouhavesufficientevidenceagainstvoluntaryeuthanasia.Themajorpropositionofyourargumentwouldbe“voluntaryeuthanasiashouldnotbelegalized（志愿安乐死不应合法化）.”

2.MinorPropositions次要命题Minorpropositionsareopinionsthatsupportthemajorproposition.Theyare,infact,subtopicsandareoftenusedassubtitlesintheargument.Todeterminewhichminorpropositionsyoucanuseinyourargument,youhavetoanalyzethemajorproposition.Youshouldexaminetheissuefromdifferentpointsofviewbypartition,bycomparison,orbycauseandeffect.2.MinorPropositions次要命题ForMajorproposition“voluntaryeuthanasiashouldnotbelegalized.”youmaydevelopminorpropositionsasfollows:Euthanasiawillnotbelimitedtopatientswithterminalillness.Voluntaryeuthanasiawillbecomenon-voluntary.Euthanasiaisaviolationofhumanrights.3.Evidence证据Afterdeterminingtheminorpropositions,youmustdoresearchontheseissuestocollectenoughevidence.Evidenceincludesthefactsandopinionsthatyouusetosupportyourpropositions.Thecommonlyusedevidenceinanargumentisasfollows.Universaltruthsandfacts.客观真理和事实Commonlyrecognizedtheoriesandprinciples.公认的理论和原则Concreteexamples.具体事例Statisticaldata.统计数据Citationsfromrecognizedauthorities.来自公认权威的引证

ArgumentOrganization

ArgumentOrganizationII.MethodsofArgumentationAfterorganizingyourarguments,youshouldpresenttheminaconvincingwaytoensurethatyouraudiencewillacceptyourpointofview.Thebasicmethodsofargumentationare:inductivemethodsdeductivemethods.1.InductiveMethod归纳法Theinductivemethodisawayofreasoningfromparticularfactstogeneralconclusions.Itisamethodofdiscoveringandtestingtheinferencesorhypothesisthatyoucandrawfromyourinformation.Inductionisthechiefwayforpeopletoestablishcausality—thatAcausesB.Theinductiveprocessconsistsofthreesteps:Lookingattheevidence.Makingahypothesistoexplaintheevidence.Investigatingtoseewhetherthehypothesisfitstheevidence.Exampleofinductiveargument归纳论证实例Inthefollowingexample,theauthorarguesinductivelyforthepropositionthateuthanasiawillnotbelimitedtopatientswithterminalillness.Theargumentissupportedbytestingthenullhypothesis原假设、零假设（未经证实的假设）thateuthanasiawillbelimitedtopatientswithterminalillnessagainstevidence.通过对照证据对原假设“安乐死将仅限用于晚期病人”进行检验来支持这一论点。Euthanasiawillnotbelimitedtopatientswithterminalillness.(安乐死将不会局限于晚期疾病患者)Voluntaryeuthanasiaissaidtobeanoptionforthosewithterminalillness.Whatterminalillnessis,however,ishardtodefine.Somedoctorsstatethat“terminal”meansthatdeathisexpectedwithinsixmonthsorless.AccordingtoJackKevorkinan,thedoctorwhoassistspeopleforeuthanasiaintheUnitedStates,terminalillnesswas“anydiseasethatcurtails（缩短）lifeevenforaday.”Thisdefinitionhasextendedeuthanasiatothosewhoarenot“terminallyill”.AutopsiesbroughtstunningrevelationsaboutKevorkian’sclients:manyhavenotbeenterminallyill,andsomewereevenwithoutphysicaldisease.EvidenceDr.L.J.Dragovic,theOaklandCountychiefmedicalexaminer（首席验尸官）,saysthatonly16ofthe69clientsheautopsied（验尸）hadbeenterminallyill;48othershadbeensufferingfromanonterminaldisease（非晚期疾病）.Intheremainingfivecases,Dragovicfoundnoanatomicalevidenceofdiseaseatall.（尸检未发现任何疾病。）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演绎法Whereastheinductivemethodisreasoningfromthespecifictothegeneral,thedeductivemethodisreasoningfromthegeneraltothespecific.Indeductivereasoning,youstartwithageneralprinciple—themajorpremise;youthenapplyittoafact—theminorpremise;andfinallyyoudrawaconclusionconcerningthefact.SyllogismThetypicalformofasyllogism三段论、演绎推理thatcanbestillustratedeductivereasoningisasfollows.MajorPremise:Mammalsarewarm-bloodedvertebrateanimals.MinorPremise:Awhaleisamammal.Conclusion:Therefore,awhaleisawarm-bloodedvertebrateanimal.ExampleofReasoningbyDeductiveMethod演绎论证实例Euthanasiaisaviolationofhumanrights.安乐死是对人权的侵犯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(反驳、抗辩)Onewaytostrengthenyourargumentistoanticipateandaddresscounterargumentsorobjections.Byconsideringwhatsomeonewhodisagreeswithyourpositionmighthavetosayaboutyourargument,youshowthatyouhavethoroughunderstandingoftheissueyouarediscussing.ExampleDealingwithCounterargumentsVoluntaryeuthanasiawillbecomenon-voluntary.(自愿安乐死将变成非自愿安乐死)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(合理论证)Throughoutanyargument,youshouldappealtoreasonratherthanemotion.Inmosttechnicalwritingsituations,anappealtoemotionwillmakeyourcaseimmediatelysuspicious.Neveruseabuse,sarcasm,exaggeration,orfierceattacksinanargument.III.AvoidingLogicalFallacies(避免逻辑谬论)Theargumentitselfmustbesoundandreasonable;thereshouldbelogicalconnectionsbetweentheclaimandthesupport.Eachpropositionshouldlogicallyfollowthepreviousone,withoutanyleapsoffaithorunidentifiedassumptions.Ifanylinkinthechainofyourargumentisflawed,theentireargumentmayfallapart.FactsaboutfallaciesFallaciesaredefectsthatweakenarguments.Itisimportanttorealizetwothingsaboutfallacies.First,fallaciousargumentsarequitecommonandmayappearfairlypersuasive,atleasttocasualreadersorlisteners.Youcanfinddozensofexamplesoffallaciousreasoninginnewspapers,advertisements,andothersources.Second,itissometimeshardtoevaluatewhetheranargumentisfallacious.1.HastyGeneralization以偏概全

Ahastygeneralizationisaconclusionbasedoninsufficientorunrepresentativeevidence.(以偏概全是指将结论基于非充分或非典型证据之上。)Forexample:Spiralorcurvedbacilliweredemonstratedinspecimensfromtwomalepatientswithactivechronicgastritis.Itcanbeconcludedthatthespiralbacilliarethepathogenyofchronicgastritis.在两个男性活动性慢性胃炎患者的标本中发现了螺旋（即弯曲）杆菌。可以得出结论，螺旋杆菌是慢性胃炎的病原。ExampleanalysisInthisexample,specimensfromtwomalepatientsdonotprovidesufficientevidencefromwhichtogeneralizeaboutthepathogenyofchronicgastritis.Ontheotherhand,theevidenceisunrepresentativebecauseitexcludedfemalepatients.Hastygeneralizationisoftenrecognizablethankstotheuseofwordssuchas“all,”“always,”“everybody”,or“none.”2.NonSequitur不当结论（无逻辑联系的推论）NonsequiturisLatinfor“itdoesnotfollow.”Anonsequituroccurswhenthecauseandtheconclusionarenotlogicallyconnected.Anonsequiturcommonlyconsistsoftwoparts,anopeningstatementandaseeminglylogicalconclusionofthatstatement.当结论与起因无逻辑联系就会导致不当结论。不当结论有两部分构成：前提陈述和不当结论。ExampleofNonSequiturIamoldenoughtofightformycountry;therefore,I’moldenoughtosmokeanddrink.ThetrafficfatalityrateontheGermanautobahn(高速公路)iscomparativelylowwiththespeedlimitsofeightymilesanhourandmore.ThisprovesthatChinacouldsafelyraiseitsspeedlimits.德国高速公路的限速在80英里和80英里以上，而车祸死亡率比较低。这说明中国提高其限速是安全的。ExampleanalysisTheconclusionsofthesentencesmightbetrue,butnoneofthestatementsshowsanydirectconnectionbetweenclaimsandtheconclusions.Asinthesecondexample,theGermansmayfollowthetrafficregulationsmorestrictly,ortheGermanautobahnmayhavebetterconditionsthantheChineseexpressway.Thesesentencesreflectsimplisticthinkingratherthanlogicalreasoning.3.BeggingtheQuestion诉诸公众（以假设作为论据的辩论，回避问题实质）Beggingthequestionmeanstotakesomethingforgrantedwithoutproof.Itassumesthattheaudiencessharebasicassumptionsandbeliefswiththearguerwheninfacttheydonot.Whenyoufindsomeoneusingsuchphrasesas“Everyoneknows,”“Weallagree,”“It’sobviousthat,”orsomeonetryingtopassoffastatementthatisnomorethananopinionasafact,you’refacingaquestion-beggingargument.诉诸公众是指观点持有人假想听众和自己持有相同观点而实际并非如此，这是想当然的逻辑谬误。“尽人皆知”，“所有人都同意”，“再明显不过”之类的表达，与将个人观点当做事实的行为都属于诉诸公众。ExamplesofBeggingtheQuestionEveryoneknowsthatthe2000swillbeapoortimetogointomedicinebecausegovernmentregulationisruiningtheprofession.人人都知道21世纪不是干医疗的好时期，因为政府的规定毁了这一行业。SincealleducatedpeoplenowknowEnglishbecauseitistheacceptedinternationallanguage,collegestudentsintheUnitedStatesdonotneedtolearnanotherlanguage.ExampleanalysisInthefirstexample,theargueristryingtopassoffaclaimasafactbyresorting“everyoneknows”.(通过使用“人人都知道”试图把主张冒充为事实)Theauthorshouldprovidealotofevidencetosupporttheclaimbeforereachingtheconclusion.Inthesecondexample,theassertionthatalleducatedpeoplenowknowEnglishisinaccurate.Englishisindeedtheacceptedinternationallanguageforpilots,mariners,andscientists,butmostofthepeopleintheworldcannotreadorspeakit.Therefore,bothargumentsbegthequestion.4.FalseAnalogy类比失当Analogyisapart-by-partcomparisonofthesimilaritiesbetweenthingsthatareotherwisedissimilar.Analogiescanbeinvaluableinhelpingreaderstounderstandabstractorelusiveideas难以捉摸的andconcepts.类比是指将不同事物之间相同的部分进行比较以帮助读者理解抽象、难以捉摸的概念。ExampleofFalseAnalogyGunsarelikehammers.Theyarebothtoolswithmetalpartsthatcouldbeusedtokillsomeone.Yetitwouldberidiculoustorestrictthepurchaseofhammers.Andsorestrictionsonpurchasinggunsareequallyridiculous.ExampleanalysisAlthoughgunsandhammerssharecertainfeatures,suchashavingmetalparts,beingtools,andbeingpotentiallyusefulforviolence,thesefeaturesarenottheonesatstakeindecidingwhethertorestrictguns.Rather,werestrictgunsbecausetheycaneasilybeusedtokilllargenumbersofpeopleatadistance.Thisisafeaturehammersdonotshare,becauseitwouldbehardtokillacrowdofpeoplewithahammer.Thus,theanalogyisfalse,andsoistheargumentbasedonit.5.Either/OrArgument虚假两分Either/orargumentisalsocalledfalsedilemmaorthefallacyofinsufficientoptions.Itisafaultyreasoningthatimpliesonemustchoosebetweenonlytwooptions—goodorbad,rightorwrong,moralorimmoral,andsoon.Thisisanotherformofsimplisticreasoningthatexplainscomplexissuesinadistortedwaysoastoattacktheopposition.虚假两份又称错误两难或选择不足谬误。该错误推理只提供好或坏、对或错、道德或非道德两种选择。该推理将复杂事物简单化以曲解事实攻击对方。ExampleofEither/OrArgumentThechoiceisbetweenclean,inexpensivenuclearenergyanddirty,expensivefossilfuels.Therearetwoki