- UID
- 1185646
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2016-1-14
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
由于水平低，所以我都用简单句简单词汇。这个最后一句是超CD某位大神的，但是忘了叫什么了。
如下
Template:
In this argument, the author was trying to convince the audience that dogs are smarter than cats. In substantiating his points, a series of evidences were provided as a part of his/her reasoning. After an analysis from the perspective of logic, we have some major concerns over this argument.
First of all, the argument provided a specific example of one smart dog compared to one dumb cat in his attempt to prove that all dogs or at least most dogs are smarter. However, this one specific example is insufficient to support the case for all dogs and cats. [以点概面]
Secondly, it was mentioned that dogs were smarter than cats 100 years ago, a key evidence used by the author which wrongly assumes that all things are equal. Due to favoritism by human beings, some species were proven to have evolved intelligently over the past few decades. The author did not consider this possible scenario that cats may have evolved faster in the past 100 years. [时地不一]
Next, the argument referred to questionable researches on animals IQ studies conducted by primary school science class students, and failed to describe the research methodologies adopted. Primary school students are usually not equipped with the fundamentals to conduct science research studies yet, therefore it is reasonable put the conclusions from their studies in doubts. [证据可疑]
Next*, the argument also committed the fallacy of false analogy. The fact that wolves are smarter than tigers does not make dogs being smarter than cats conclusive. It is highly doubtful that cats can be directly analogous to tigers as the difference in size of brains is obvious. [乱打比方]
Next*, the author fails to consider the possibility that the two species are on average of similar intelligence level but specific test results could differ due to many lurking factors. Different temperatures or different humudity could all be sources of interference of the test results. The fact of the comparison may even be inconclusive! [非黑即白]
Next*, there is no logical causal relationship between one of the author’s evidences, a survey which shows that cats have higher chance to be gone missing, and the intelligence level comparison between dogs and cats. This is a typical oversimplification of causal effect, just as concluding that smoking kills simply from higher mortality rate for smokers. [强行因果]
Last but not least, the author’s argument assumed that IQ assessed through behavioral studies can predict the true level of intelligence. In fact, according to studies, some species try hard to hide their cognitive abilities so that they can escape from the fate of being tamed by human.
[错误前提]
In conclusion, the author failed to provide sound reasoning in his/her argument. To enhance the reasoning further, he/she should provide more concrete evidences and cite reliable research studies. Moreover, to further strengthen the argument, the author should consider all possible situations rather than jumping into a conclusion a choice between two. Only with more convincing reasoning could the argument become more than just a misleading claim.
*通常最多攻击四点，所以这个我就没有换 |
|
[复制链接]
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2016-1-30 19:18:13
收藏
收藏
楼主
