“Assumption类”Argument写作思路建议

竹林中人

转自：http://page.renren.com/601463889/note/870515725
在前面两篇关于Argument日志（链接一，链接二）当中，我们指出了新G的Argument存在两类与老G Argument差别很大的instruction（写作指导），分别为evaluate类和alternative explanation类。下面我们简要回顾一下文中的要点，总结起来就是：
老Argument的整个基调是：作者的论证不好。因此为了证明这一点，我们需要找出作者的证据有哪些问题（调查数据不可靠等），犯了哪些逻辑错误（前后故因果等），是不是没有考虑全其他因素（未考虑他因以及未考虑其他建议等）。总之是一种比较aggressive的approach，而且是result-oriented（结果导向型）。
新Argument中evaluate类的基调是：作者论证得好不好我们不知道，但是我们清楚还需要什么证据来判断（或评估）作者的逻辑。可见整个立场从原来的敌对变成了中立：如果evidence支持，我们就支持（原文被增强）；如果evidence不支持，我们就不支持（原文被削弱），而且文章也成了evidence-oriented（证据导向型）。
而这个Alternative explanation类的instruction则把上面的敌意进一步消除了：作者的解释对不对、合不合理我们根本不care，我们也不关心需要什么证据来证明或证伪——我们只想知道还有什么其他的可能性。换句话说，这时候已经完全不用考虑作者的结论是不是正确了（当然是有可能正确、也有可能不正确的），我们只要找到其他合理的解释就好，文章是explanation-oriented（解释导向型）。
（有人询问我们这么说的依据何在，请看http://www.ets.org/gre/revised_g ... l_writing/argument/上面明确的要求：
You are not being asked to discuss whether the statements in the argument are true or accurate.
You are not being asked to agree or disagree with the position stated.
You are not being asked to express your own views on the subject being discussed (as you were in the Issue task).
Instead, you are being asked to evaluate the logical soundness of an argument of another writer and, in doing so, to demonstrate the critical thinking, perceptive reading and analytical writing skills that university faculty consider important for success in graduate school.）


今天要说的assumption类也可以用类似的语言总结一遍，也就是本文的核心内容：
Assumption类的基调是：我们不关心作者的结论是否正确，我们只关注作者在论证过程中：1.做出了哪些假设；2.这些假设如何为结论和推理服务；3.当假设被驳倒时结论会有什么影响。
（附上instruction原文：Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions, and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.）
不难发现这里和老G的思路比较相似，因为老G当中我们也会讨论作者做了哪些assumption，它们不合理，所以作者的结论不正确。但这里唯一也是最重要的差别在于，我们讨论assumption并不是为了证明结论的不合理，而是就事论事，分析这个Argument本身的reasoning——当然这里的结果必然是不靠谱，但这是一个很自然的结论，而不是刻意去实现的目标。
  
下面我们以Argument 12为例，跟大家分享一下如何组织这一类argument的语言：
12. The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice for a client.

"Most homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. Last heating season that region experienced 90 days with below-normal temperatures, and climate forecasters predict that this weather pattern will continue for several more years. Furthermore, many new homes are being built in the region in response to recent population growth. Because of these trends, we predict an increased demand for heating oil and recommend investment in Consolidated Industries, one of whose major business operations is the retail sale of home heating oil."

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

这篇Argument的分析如下：
Recommendation：应该增加对于Consolidated Industries的投资
      ↓
Reason 1（unstated）：因为Consolidated预期会获得大量利润（从而有分红）
      ↓
Reason 1.1：heating oil的需求会上升；
Reason 1.2：Consolidated是主营heating oil的公司之一
      ↓
（对于1.1）
Reason 1.1.1：未来的气候预计会变得越来越冷；
Reason 1.1.2：很多美国东北部的家庭习惯用oil取暖
Reason 1.1.3：更多的房屋将会被修建起来 ← Reason 1.1.3.1：因为人口数量上升

因此作者做出了以下几个很明显有问题、也是在论证过程中很关键的假设：1. 气候变冷的预测是准确可靠的（而预测可能不准）；2. 气候变冷之后人们还会用oil取暖（但可能采用太阳能）；3. 新的房屋也是用oil取暖（但可能采用其他能源，这里和2类似，可以合并成“demand in heating oil不一定会上升”一起讲）；4. 需求上升意味着Consolidated的利润上升（可能Consolidated运营成本很高，一直亏损；或者没有考虑竞争对手的实力）。按照这种思路，我们选取1，2，4这三个点，最后的成文为：

（502 words）
Based on the prediction that the demand for heating oil will increase, the author recommends investment in Consolidated Industries, one of whose major business operations is the retail sale of home heating oil. Although such investment seems reasonable and advisable, the author’s recommendation may be open to doubt because of several unsubstantiated assumptions regarding the prediction of an increased oil demand as well as the company’s profitability.

To start with, the argument essentially relies on a prediction that the cold weather pattern will continue, which implies an increased need for home heating energy sources. Yet the author does not justify this prediction but merely assumes the forecasters and their prediction to be reliable. The problem is that the climate system is highly intricate and human beings now only have limited understanding of it. As a result, any climate prediction may be more or less subject to uncertainties and errors. If, for example the forecasters mentioned in the argument are merely some undergraduates with little previous experience in climate forecasting, the credibility of this prediction will certainly be weakened. In this scenario, the predicted increase in oil demand as well as the investment recommendation itself would also be less believable.

Even if we assume that the prediction on the climate pattern is trustworthy, the predicted rise in heating oil demand still needs further substantiation. The author assumes that oil is the only energy source available in the market to fuel residential heating, which is apparently doubtful because there are probably many other existing and potential energy sources that could power residential heating systems as well. For instance, in the future people in the northeastern United States might switch to solar or wind energy due to the emission of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels, which are allegedly responsible for the climate change. Under such circumstances, the number of residents using oil to heat their houses is unlikely to increase, making Consolidated Industries less profitable than it is expected to be in the argument. In this light, the argument will be greatly weakened.

Granted that the oil demand will increase, it still remains unclear whether Consolidated could consequently enjoy a significant profit gain. The author assumes, without any justification, that the promising market certainly indicates increased profits of individual firms. Nevertheless, the profitability of a company can be influenced by many other factors such as competition, government policies as well as its own operation costs. It is possible that Consolidated is poorly managed and the operation costs are too high to be compensated by an increase in revenue. In this scenario, investment in Consolidated may not be prudent or advisable.

To summarize, since the author makes a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, his argument is open to doubt. In order to make his recommendation more believable, he should provide concrete evidence to prove that the cold climate pattern will continue, that residents will use oil as their primary home heating fuel and that Consolidate can enjoy a profit gain from the rising demand for heating oil.

总的来说，一个段落只要说清楚四个问题就可以了：
1. 作者的假设是什么；
2. 作者的假设是如何联系到最终结论的；
3. 存在哪些可能的情况来disprove作者的假设；
4. 如果assumptions prove wrong，作者的结论会如何（显然，是less convincing或less believable）。

oliversnowvon

我发现竹林中人很牛逼。。。分析的特别透彻，爽翻天！

snowman2009

很好 很强大

飘过的天

好好看看会有帮助的