2024年3月22日发(作者：)
SECTION A MINI-LECTURE
Models for Arguments
Three models for arguments
the first model for arguing is called (1) ________ ;
— arguments are treated as war
— there is much winning and losing
— it is a (2) ________ model for arguing
the second model for arguing is arguments as proofs:
— (3) warranted ________
— valid inferences and conclusions
— no (4) _________ in the adversarial sense
the third model for arguing is (5) _______ :
— the audience is (6) _________ in the arguments
— arguments must (7) _________ the audience
Traits of the argument as war
very dominant: it can shape (8) ________
strong arguments are needed
negative effects include:
— (9) _______ are emphasized
— winning is the only purpose
— this type of arguments prevent (10) _______
— the worst thing is (11) ________
implication from arguments as war: (12) ________
— e.g., one providing reasons and the other raising (13) ________
— the other one is finally persuaded
Suggestions on new ways to (14) ________ of arguments
think of new kinds of arguments
change roles in arguments
(15) ________
SECTION B INTERVIEW
Now, listen to the Part One of the interview. Questions 1 to 5 are based on Part One of
the interview.
1. What is the topic of the interview
A. Maggie 's university life.
B. Her mom's life at Harvard.
C. Maggie's view on studying with Mom.
D. Maggie's opinion on her mom's major.
2. Which of the following indicates that they have the same study schedule
A. They take exams in the same weeks.
B. They have similar lecture notes.
C. They apply for the same internship.
D. They follow the same fashion.
3. What do the mother and the daughter have in common as students
A. Having roommates.
B. Practicing court trails.
C. Studying together.
D. Taking notes by hand.
4. What is the biggest advantage of studying with Mom
A. Protection.
B. Imagination.
C. Excitement.
D. Encouragement.
5. What is the biggest disadvantage of studying with Mom
A. Thinking of ways to comfort Mom.
B. Occasional interference from Mom.
C. Ultimately calls when Maggie is busy.
D. Frequent check on Maggie's grades.
Now, listen to the Part Two of the interview. Questions 6 to 10 are based on Part Two of
the interview.
6. Why is parent and kid studying together a common case
A. Because parents need to be ready for new jobs.
B. Because parents love to return to college.
C. Because kids require their parents to do so.
D. Because kids find it hard to adapt to college life.
7. What would Maggie 's mom like to be after college
A. Real estate agent.
B. Financier.
C. Lawyer.
D. Teacher.
8. How does Maggie
'smom feel about sitting in class after 30 years
A. Delighted.
B. Excited.
C. Bored.
D. Frustrated.
9. What is most challenging for Maggie'smom
A. How to make a cake.
B. How to make omelets.
C. To accept what is taught.
D. To plan a future career.
10. How does Maggie describe the process of thinking out one
's career path
A. Unsuccessful.
B. Gradual.
C. Frustrating.
D. Passionate.
Keys:
1. the dialectical model
2. common and fixed
3. premises
4. opposition / arguing
5. arguments as performances / the rhetorical model
6. participatory / participating / the participant / taking part
7. be tailored to / cater for
8. how we argue / our actual conduct
9. tactics / strategies
10. negotiation and collaboration
11. there's no solution / progress
12. learning with losing
13. questions / counter-considerations / counter-arguments / objections /
arguments in opposition
14. achieve positive effects
15. support oneself / yourself
C A D D B
A C D C B
Script:
Good morning, everyone. My name is David and I am good at arguing. So
welcome to our introductory lecture on argumentation. Why do we want to argue Why
do we try to convince other people to believe things that they don't want to believe And
is that even a nice thing to do Is that a nice way to treat other human being, try and
make them think something they don't want to think Well, my answer is going to make
reference to three models for arguments.
(1) The first model
—
let
'call this the dialectical model
—
is that we thi nk of
argume nts as war. And you know what that's like. There is a lot of scream ing and
shouting and winning and losing. (2) And that's
not really a very helpful model arguing,
but it's a pretty com mon and fixed one」guess you must have see n that type of arguing
many times
—
in the street, on the bus or in the subway.
Let' move on to the second model. The second model for arguing regards
arguments as proofs. Think of a mathematician's argument. Heres
my argument. Does
it work Is it any good (3) Are the premise^ 前提)warranted Are the inferences (推论))valid Does the conclusion follow the premises (4) No opposition, no adversariality
(对抗) — not necessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense.
(5) And there "sa third model to keep in mind that I thi nk is going to be very
helpful, and that is arguments as performances, arguments as being in front of an
audienee. We can think of a politician trying to present a position, trying to convince the
audie nee of somethi ng.
But there's another twist (转折) on this model that I really think is important;
namely, that when we argue before an audienee, (6) sometimes the audienee has a
more participatory role in the argume nt;that is, you prese nt you argume nts in front of
an audie nee who are like juries(陪审团) that make a judgme nt and decide the case.
(5) Let 'call this model the rhetorical model, (7) where you have to tailor (迎合) your
argume nt to the audie nee at hand.
Of those three, the argument as war is the dominant one. It dominates how we
talk about arguments, it dominates how we think about arguments, and becauseof that,
（8） it shapes how we argue, our actual right on target. We want to have our defenses
up and our strategies all in order. We want killer arguments. ThaS the kind of argument
we want. It is the dominant way of thinking about arguments. When I ' talk ing about
argume nts, thats probably what you thought of, the adversarial model.
But the war metaphor, the war paradigm （范例） or model for thi nking about
argume nts, has, I think, n egative effects on how we argue. （9First, it elevates tactics
over substa can take a class in logic argume ntatio n. You lear n all about the
strategies that people use to try and win arguments and that makes arguing adversarial;
itspolarizing （分化的）.And the only foreseeable outcomes are triumph —glorious
triumph — or disgraceful （可耻的） defeat. I think those are very destructive effects,
and worst of all, （10） it seems to prevent things like negotiation and collaboration（合作）.Um, I think the argument-as-war metaphor inhibits（阻止） those other kinds of
resoluti ons to argume ntatio n.
（11） And fin ally — this is really the worst thi ng — argume nts dontseem to get
us any where; theyre dead end（死胡同）.We don't any where. Oh, and one more thing.
（12） That is, if argument is war, then therms also an implicit （绝对的） aspect of
meaning — learning with losing.
And let me explain what I mean. Suppose you and I have an argument. You
believe a propositi on （命题） and I don't. And I say, Well, why do you believe that”
And you give me your reasons. And I object and say, Well, what about…？ ” And I have
a question: Well, what do you mean How does it apply over here ” And you answer my
question. Now, suppose at the end of the day, I ve objected, I 'e questi on ed, (13)1 ve
raised all sorts of questio ns from an opposite perspective and in every case you've
respon ded to my satisfacti on. And so at the end of the day, I say,
You know what I guess you're right. ” Maybe fin ally I lost my argume nt. But isn 't it
also a process of lear ning So you see argume nts may also have positive effects.
(14) So, how can we find new ways to achieve those positive effects We n eed to
think of new kinds of argume nts. Here I have some suggesti on. If we want to thi nk of
new kinds of argume nt, what we n eed to do is thi nk of new kinds of arguers — people
who argue.
So try this: Think of all the roles that people play in argume nts. (1) (5) There's the
proponent and the opponent in an adversarial, dialectical argume^话式论证). There's
the audienee in rhetorical arguments. There's the reasonerin arguments as proofs. All
these differe nt roles. Now, can you imagi ne an argume nt in which you are the arguer,
but you re also in the audienee, watching yourself argue Can you imagine yourself
watching yourself argue (15) That means you need to be supported by yourself. Even
when you lose the argument, still, at the end of the argument, you could say, Wow, that
was a good argumenf! Can you do that I think you can. In this way, you've bee n
supported by yourself.
Up till now, I have lost a lot of arguments. It really takes practice to become a
good arguer, i n the sense of being able to ben efit from los ing, but fortun ately, I
ve had
many, many colleagues who have been willing to step up and provide that practice for
me.
Ok. To sum up, in today's lecture, I have in troduced three models of argume nts.
(1) The first model is called the dialectical model. The second one is the model of
argume nts as proofs. (5)A nd the last one is called the rhetorical model, the model of
arquments as performancesl have also emphasized that, though the adversarial type of
argume nts is quite com mon, we can still make argume nts produce some positive
effects. Next time I will continue our discussion on the process of arguing.
