2016迷你演讲

答案+解析：

PART I LISTENING COMPREHENSION

SECTION A

Models forArguments

Good morning,everyone. My name is David and I am good at arguing. So welcome to ourintroductory lecture on argumentation. Why do we want to argue? Why do we tryto convince other people to believe things that they don’t want to believe? Andis 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 isgoing to make reference to three models for arguments. 

[1] The firstmodel — let’scall this the dialectical model— is that we think ofarguments as war. And you know what that’s like. There is a lot of screamingand shouting and winning and losing. [2] And that’s not really a very helpfulmodel for arguing, but it’s a pretty common and fixed one. I guess you musthave seen that type of arguing many times —in the street, on the bus or in the subway.

Let’s move on tothe second model. The second model for arguing regards arguments as proofs.Think of a mathematician’s argument. Here’s my argument. Does it work? Is itany good? [3] Are the premises warranted? Are the inferences valid? Doesthe conclusion follow the premises? [4] No opposition, no adversariality— not necessarily anyarguing in the adversarial sense.

[5] And there’sa third model to keep in mind that I think is going to be very helpful, andthat is arguments as performances, arguments as being in front of anaudience. We can think of a politician trying to present a position, trying toconvince the audience of something. But there’s another twist on this modelthat I really think is important; namely, that when we argue before anaudience, [6] sometimes the audience has a more participatory role in theargument: that is, you present your arguments in front of an audience whoare like juries that make a judgment and decide the case. [5] Let’s callthis model the rhetorical model, [7] where you have to tailor yourargument to the audience at hand.

Of those three,the argument as war is the dominant one. It dominates how we talk aboutarguments, it dominates how we think about arguments, and because of that, [8] Itshapes how we argue, our actual conduct in arguments. We want strongarguments, arguments that have a lot of punch, arguments that are right ontarget. We want to have our defenses up and our strategies all in order. Wewant killer arguments

That’sthe kind of argument we want. It is the dominant way of thinking aboutarguments. When I'm talking about arguments, that’s probably what you thoughtof, the adversarial model.

      Butthe war metaphor, the war paradigm or model for thinking about arguments, has,I think, negative effects on how we argue. [9] First, it elevates tacticsover substance. You can take a class in logic argumentation. You learn allabout the strategies that people use to try and win arguments and that makesarguing adversarial; it’s polarizing. And the only foreseeable outcomes aretriumph — glorioustriumph — ordisgraceful defeat. I think those are very destructive effects, and worst ofall, [10] it seems to prevent things like negotiation and collaboration. Um,I think the argument-as-war metaphor inhibits those other kinds of resolutionsto argumentation.

[11]And finally — this is really the worst thing— arguments don’t seemto get us anywhere: they’re dead ends. We don’t getanywhere. Oh, and one more thing. [12] That is, if argument is war, thenthere’s also an implicit aspect of meaning — leaning with losing.

And let me explainwhat I mean. Suppose you and I have an argument. You believe a proposition andI don’t. And I say, “Well, why do you believe that?” And you give me yourreasons. And I object and say, “Well, what about?” And you answer my objection.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’ve questioned, [13] I’ve raised all sorts of questions from an opposite perspectiveand in every case you’ve responded to my satisfaction. And so at the end ofthe day, I say, “You know what? I guess you’re right.” Maybe finally I lost myargument. But isn’t it also a process of learning? So you see arguments mayalso have positive effects.

[14] So, howcan we find new ways to achieve those positive effects? We need to think ofnew kinds of arguments. Here I have some suggestions. If we want to think ofnew kinds of arguments, what we need to do is think of new kinds of arguers — people who argue.

So try this: Thinkof all the roles that people play in arguments. There’s the proponent and theopponent in an adversarial, dialectical argument. There’s the audience inrhetorical arguments. There’s the reasoner in arguments as proofs. All thesedifferent roles. Now, can you imagine an argument in which you are the arguer,but you’re also in the audience, watching yourself argue? Can you imagineyourself watching yourself argue? [15] That means you need to be supportedby yourself. Even when you lose the argument, still, at the end of theargument, you could say, “Wow, that was a good argument!” Can you do that? I thinkyou can. In this way, you’ve been supported by yourself.

Up till now, Ihave lost a lot of arguments. It really takes practice to become a good arguer,in the sense of being able to benefit from losing, but fortunately, I’ve hadmany, many colleagues who have been willing to step up and provide thatpractice for me.

OK. To sum up, intoday's lecture, I have introduced three models of arguments. [1] The firstmodel called the dialectical model. The second one is the model ofarguments as proofs. [5] And the last one called the rhetorical model, themodel of arguments as performances. I have also emphasized that, though theadversarial type of arguments is quite common, we can still make argumentsproduce some positive effects. Next time I will continue our discussion on theprocess of arguing.

1. the dialectical model

【详解】录音提到第一种模式叫做辩证模式 (thedialectical model)，答案可直接从录音中听到，故本题答案可填入录音原词thedialectical model。

2. common and fixed

【详解】录音中在介绍完第一种辩论模式后，对其进行了评价，指出这并非一种非常有用的辩论方式 (notreally a very helpful model for…)，但却是一种常见和固定的模式 (common and fixed)。该题要注意语义转折，答案可填入录音原词 common and fixed。

3. premises

【详解】在介绍第二种辩论模式时，演讲者给出了自己的辩论模式示范，其中列举了一系列问题，其中第三个问题说到前提是否正当合理 (Arethe premises warranted?)。本题填入premises。

4. opposition // arguing

【详解】在介绍第二种辩论模式时，演讲者除了列举一系列问题作为示范外，最后还总结道：这种辩论模式中不涉及反对意见和观点碰撞(Noopposition, no adversariality)，更没有任何敌对意义上的辩论 (not necessarily anyarguing…)。提纲上的第4题几乎是对录音原词的复现，填arguing最便捷，填 opposition也可。

5. arguments as performances // the rhetorical model

【详解】本题问辩论的第三种模式。演讲者首先提到这种模式是argumentsas performances (表演式辩论)，随后又提到可称这种方式为therhetorical model。本题按录音原词填入二者中任意一个均可。

6. participatory // participating // the participant //taking part

【详解】在简要介绍完第三种辩论模式的基本情况后，演讲者话锋一转，指出该模式有一种例外情况，即有时在辩论时，观众在辩论中的参与度更高(sometimes the audience has a more participatory role...)。提纲中此空格前为be动词is，故可填人participating与in构成词组,也可填入其他表相同意思的表达。

7. be tailored to // cater for

【详解】录音中，在具体解释第三种辩论模式的另一名称后，演讲者指出这种模式下必须迎合听众 (haveto tailor your argument to the audience)。录音中 tailor的受动者argument在提纲中作为主语出现，故本题需将录音中的主动语态改变为被动语态，填入betailored to。本题也可填caterfor。

8. how we argue // our actual conduct

【详解】在介绍完三种辩论模式的基本情况后，演讲者进行小结时指出，第一种争战式的辩论模式一直是我们主要的辩论模式，因此它塑造了我们辩论的模式以及我们在辩论中的实际行为。本题填入how weargue和ouractual conduct均可。

9. tactics // strategies

【详解】在谈及第一种争战式的辩论模式的消极影响时，演讲者指出第一点就是将策略置于内容之前 (itelevates tactics over substance)，即该辩论模式强调策略，故填入tactics，也可填 strategies，注意用复数。

10. negotiation and collaboration

【详解】在介绍争战式的辩论模式的消极影响时，演讲者特别指出，更消极的影响是该辩论模式会阻止一些事情发生，如协商与合作 (negotiationand collaboration)，故该空格可填入negotiationand collaboration。

11. There’sno solution // progress

【详解】本题考查争战式辩论模式的最坏消极影响。对此，演讲者的原话是：这种辩论模式似乎使我们寸步难行 (don’t.get us anywhere)；它们是死胡同(they’redead ends)，不会带领我们走向任何地方。演讲者此处重在说明此种模式使人止步不前，没有进展，可将答案概括为there’sno solution / progress。

12. learning with losing

【详解】本题考查争战式的辩论模式的隐含意味。演讲者在介绍完此种辩论模式最坏的消极影响后，特别指出这种模式背后还有隐含意味，即从失败中学习，故本题填入learningwith losing。

13. questions // counter-considerations //counter-arguments // objections // arguments in opposition

【详解】录音中，演讲者在讲完从失败中学习这一概念后，给出了具体的解释，并假设了一个两人辩论的场景：其中一方提出问题或反对、质疑，另一方进行解答。提纲中已给出 one providing reasons，则空格中可填入录音原词 questions，与 raising构成搭配表示“提出问题”。也可根据双方持不同意见这个辩论场景，概括填写诸如counter-considerations，counter-arguments，objections， arguments inopposition等表示“反对意见”的表达。

14. achieve positive effects

【详解】演讲者在介绍完争战式的辩论模式也能产生积极效应 (learningwith losing) 后，紧接着提出了建议以获取此类积极效应。录音中直接提到了So,how... to achieve those positive effects? 本空格可原词填人achieve positiveeffects。

15. support oneself / yourself

【详解】录音中演讲者提出了三种获取积极效应的建议，其中包括设想新辩题 (thinkof new kinds of arguments)，角色扮演以及角色扮演过程中支持自

己的观点 (be supportedby yourself)。提纲中已出现前两个建议，故本空格可填入supportoneself / yourself，也可填beself-supported。