|
之前幫兩個(gè)同學(xué)改文章，我發(fā)現(xiàn)在一個(gè)題目上，他們都出現(xiàn)過很大的問題。我感覺這應(yīng)該不是個(gè)單獨(dú)現(xiàn)象，很多朋友應(yīng)該也會有這樣的問題，特拿出來給大家分享。
Argument 17: The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.
"Walnut Grove's town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ -- which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks -- has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance."
在這里我請求大家花點(diǎn)時(shí)間思考下，你自己的話，你會怎么寫。
我不知道大家是怎么寫的，但是我兩個(gè)同學(xué)寫的文章簡直如出一轍！
攻擊的3段內(nèi)容是：
1. The arguer fails to provide necessary and confident evidence about whether the residents of Walnut Grove care more about the frequency of the trash collection than the amount of money they paid.
2. The fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks tells us little about EZ's performance.
3. The argument depends on a survey that 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were "satisfied" with EZ's performance.
請大家捫心自問，自己是不是也是這樣想的。我可以大膽地猜測至少60%的人是這么寫的。
那么我請問，你這樣的邏輯攻擊，能和別人有區(qū)別么？那么多人，和你采用的都是一樣的論調(diào)，憑什么你的就能得高分，別人的就比較低？
再看這些攻擊的提綱。我不知道大家是不是有個(gè)感覺，發(fā)現(xiàn)自己有點(diǎn)在“找歪理”。
比如這個(gè)“EZ公司一個(gè)禮拜收2次，ABC收1次垃圾”。我不知道有多少人是不關(guān)心這個(gè)收垃圾的頻率；我不知道在夏天，1個(gè)禮拜的垃圾是不是會發(fā)臭到讓人難以忍受。
再比如這個(gè)“EZ公司和abc一樣有20輛汽車，并且會預(yù)定更多的汽車”。我實(shí)在看不出，一個(gè)公司汽車多些有什么不好。我同學(xué)居然能說出，這些汽車也許不是運(yùn)垃圾的……我不知道在這樣成篇說垃圾的文章里面，作者會愚蠢到說不運(yùn)垃圾的汽車。
我不知道在現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中，有誰給你說出這樣的話。
比如，你告訴你朋友，請a清潔工去他家做工吧，a在自己家干過，手腳干凈，干活麻利。
然后你朋友說：“你憑什么說a就一定好？在你家干活麻利，手腳干凈，怎么就一定能說在我家也這樣？再說了，我家條件比你家好，你憑什么說，她就不會見財(cái)起貪心？”
試問，遇到這樣的朋友，你還會和他繼續(xù)說下去么？
|
