1、ObjectivesLearn how to do technical argumentation:Organization of argumentationMethods of argumentationAvoiding logical fallacies Purpose of technical argumentationThe purpose of a technical argument is to help readers make a decision.Whenever you are exercising your professional judgment or express
2、ing an opinion,you will need the techniques of argumentation to convince your readers to adopt your point of view.I.Organization of ArgumentationAn argument supports one major opinion,which is often called the major proposition（主要命题、大前提）or thesis statement（论题）.In turn,the major proposition is suppor
3、ted by a series of minor propositions（次要命题、小前提）,which are also opinions.Finally,the minor propositions are supported by evidence,which is usually verifiable facts and statements from recognized authorities.major propositionminor propositionevidenceevidenceminor propositionevidenceAn example about ho
4、w to construct an argumentTopic:whether should voluntary euthanasia 自愿自愿安乐死安乐死 be legalized?You may organize your argument in the following way.1.Major proposition 主要命题主要命题The major proposition is the point you are making about the subject.It is the statement of the main idea of the argument.It shou
5、ld be explicitly stated,and is usually placed at the beginning of the argument.Suppose that you have done a lot of investigation on euthanasia and you have sufficient evidence against voluntary euthanasia.The major proposition of your argument would be“voluntary euthanasia should not be legalized（志愿
6、安乐死不应合法化）.”2.Minor Propositions 次要命题次要命题Minor propositions are opinions that support the major proposition.They are,in fact,subtopics and are often used as subtitles in the argument.To determine which minor propositions you can use in your argument,you have to analyze the major proposition.You shoul
7、d examine the issue from different points of view by partition,by comparison,or by cause and effect.2.Minor Propositions 次要命题次要命题For Major proposition“voluntary euthanasia should not be legalized.”you may develop minor propositions as follows:Euthanasia will not be limited to patients with terminal
8、illness.Voluntary euthanasia will become non-voluntary.Euthanasia is a violation of human rights.3.Evidence 证据证据After determining the minor propositions,you must do research on these issues to collect enough evidence.Evidence includes the facts and opinions that you use to support your propositions.
9、The commonly used evidence in an argument is as follows.Universal truths and facts.客观真理和事实 Commonly recognized theories and principles.公认的理论和原则 Concrete examples.具体事例 Statistical data.统计数据 Citations from recognized authorities.来自公认权威的引证 Argument Organization Argument OrganizationII.Methods of Argume
10、ntationAfter organizing your arguments,you should present them in a convincing way to ensure that your audience will accept your point of view.The basic methods of argumentation are:inductive methodsdeductive methods.1.Inductive Method 归纳法归纳法The inductive method is a way of reasoning from particular
11、 facts to general conclusions.It is a method of discovering and testing the inferences or hypothesis that you can draw from your information.Induction is the chief way for people to establish causalitythat A causes B.The inductive process consists of three steps:Looking at the evidence.Making a hypo
12、thesis to explain the evidence.Investigating to see whether the hypothesis fits the evidence.Example of inductive argument归纳论证实例归纳论证实例In the following example,the author argues inductively for the proposition that euthanasia will not be limited to patients with terminal illness.The argument is suppo
13、rted by testing the null hypothesis 原假设、零假设（未经证实的假设）that euthanasia will be limited to patients with terminal illness against evidence.通过对照证据对原假设“安乐死将仅限用于晚期病人”进行检验来支持这一论点。Euthanasia will not be limited to patients with terminal illness.(安乐死将不会局限于晚期疾病患者)Voluntary euthanasia is said to be an option fo
14、r those with terminal illness.What terminal illness is,however,is hard to define.Some doctors state that“terminal”means that death is expected within six months or less.According to Jack Kevorkinan,the doctor who assists people for euthanasia in the United States,terminal illness was“any disease tha
15、t curtails（缩短）life even for a day.”This definition has extended euthanasia to those who are not“terminally ill”.Autopsies brought stunning revelations about Kevorkians clients:many have not been terminally ill,and some were even without physical disease.EvidenceDr.L.J.Dragovic,the Oakland County chi
16、ef medical examiner（首席验尸官）,says that only 16 of the 69 clients he autopsied（验尸）had been terminally ill;48 others had been suffering from a nonterminal disease（非晚期疾病）.In the remaining five cases,Dragovic found no anatomical evidence of disease at all.（尸检未发现任何疾病。）Even in the case where a specific life
17、 expectancy(like six months)is referred to,medical experts acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to predict the life expectancy of a particular patient.Some people diagnosed as terminally ill remain alive long after being diagnosed.I have a friend with liver cancer who has outlived the doctors
18、 diagnosis for five years and is still having an active life.With the rapid advancement of medical sciences,new treatment will be found for some so-called terminal illness.Therefore,euthanasia,if it were to be legalized,would not be limited to those who are terminally ill,and“terminal illness”should
19、 not become a concept or criterion to determine peoples life and death.The deductive process of this argument goes like this:Evidence:(1)Of 69 clients who committed assisted suicide,only 16 were terminally ill.(2)Some people diagnosed as terminally ill remain alive long after being diagnosed.Null hy
20、pothesis:Euthanasia will be limited to patients with terminal illness.Testing the hypothesis against the evidence:The evidence proves that aesthesia has extended to those who are not terminally ill,and some people diagnosed as terminally ill remain alive years after the diagnosis.Thus,the null hypot
21、hesis is rejected.2.Deductive Method 演绎法演绎法Whereas the inductive method is reasoning from the specific to the general,the deductive method is reasoning from the general to the specific.In deductive reasoning,you start with a general principlethe major premise;you then apply it to a factthe minor pre
22、mise;and finally you draw a conclusion concerning the fact.SyllogismThe typical form of a syllogism三段论、演绎推理 that can best illustrate deductive reasoning is as follows.Major Premise:Mammals are warm-blooded vertebrate animals.Minor Premise:A whale is a mammal.Conclusion:Therefore,a whale is a warm-bl
23、ooded vertebrate animal.Example of Reasoning by Deductive Method 演绎演绎论证实例论证实例Euthanasia is a violation of human rights.安乐死是对人权的侵犯Euthanasia advocators state that in a free democratic society,individuals have a right to make their own decisions on matters of their own concern,and euthanasia saves the
24、 burden of the family and the society.Here the euthanasia advocators emphasize peoples right to death,but they neglect peoples other rights.The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.All people are equally entit
25、led to civil and political rights,of which peoples right to life is fundamental.If the medical treatment to a patient has become a financial burden to his or her family,it is our social system that has to be improved so that better medical care can be provided for every member of the society,instead
26、 of pressuring the patient towards euthanasia consent.If it is not so,it would the same as saying“treat the rich and kill the poor.”Instead of promoting peoples rights and freedom,euthanasia actually reflects the inequality of the society and is a violation of human rights.The syllogism used in this
27、 paragraph goes somewhat like this:Major Premise:The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.Minor Premise:The right to life is the basic human right.Conclusion:Euthanasia deprives peoples right to life on econom
28、ic concern,so it is a violation of human rights.3.Dealing with Counterarguments(反反驳、抗辩驳、抗辩)One way to strengthen your argument is to anticipate and address counterarguments or objections.By considering what someone who disagrees with your position might have to say about your argument,you show that
29、you have thorough understanding of the issue you are discussing.Example Dealing with CounterargumentsVoluntary euthanasia will become non-voluntary.(自愿安乐死将变成非自愿安乐死)Euthanasia advocators define voluntary euthanasia as a quick and peaceful death with medical assistance in the interests and at the requ
30、est of the patient.Patients who endure great physical and mental sufferings from serious illness,however,may not be competent to give a reliable informed consent(知情同意).For example,Janet Adkins,a 54-year-old woman in the early stages of Alzheimers disease,was questioned by Dr.Kevorkian for euthanasia
31、.At times,he seemed to guide her answers,and on several occasions she appeared confused.Medical experts later noted that Adkins mental difficulties should have indicated to Kevorkian that she might not have been capable of providing informed consent to her death.Nevertheless,Kevorkian performed the
32、assisted suicide on her two days later.On the other hand,emotional and psychological pressures could become overpowering for depressed or dependent people.If the choice of euthanasia is considered as good as a decision to receive care,the patient may feel guilty for not choosing death.Financial cons
33、iderations,added to the concern about“being a burden,”could serve as powerful forces that would lead a person to“choose”euthanasia or assisted suicide against his or her will.Based on the evidence,it can be concluded that voluntary euthanasia will become non-voluntary euthanasia.Example analysisIn o
34、rder to support the proposition that voluntary euthanasia will become non-voluntary,the author first presents his opponents definition of voluntary euthanasia.Then he goes ahead to refute the definition with facts that patients with mental suffering are not able to provide a reliable voluntary conse
35、nt and that patients under financial difficulties may choose euthanasia against their own will.By proving the falsehood of his opponents argument,the author may convince the reader to accept his proposition.4.Sound Argument(合理论证合理论证)Throughout any argument,you should appeal to reason rather than emo
36、tion.In most technical writing situations,an appeal to emotion will make your case immediately suspicious.Never use abuse,sarcasm,exaggeration,or fierce attacks in an argument.III.Avoiding Logical Fallacies(避免逻辑避免逻辑谬论谬论)The argument itself must be sound and reasonable;there should be logical connect
37、ions between the claim and the support.Each proposition should logically follow the previous one,without any leaps of faith or unidentified assumptions.If any link in the chain of your argument is flawed,the entire argument may fall apart.Facts about fallaciesFallacies are defects that weaken argume
38、nts.It is important to realize two things about fallacies.First,fallacious arguments are quite common and may appear fairly persuasive,at least to casual readers or listeners.You can find dozens of examples of fallacious reasoning in newspapers,advertisements,and other sources.Second,it is sometimes
39、 hard to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious.1.Hasty Generalization 以偏概全以偏概全 A hasty generalization is a conclusion based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence.(以偏概全是指将结论基于非充分或非典型证据之上。)For example:Spiral or curved bacilli were demonstrated in specimens from two male patients with activ
40、e chronic gastritis.It can be concluded that the spiral bacilli are the pathogeny of chronic gastritis.在两个男性活动性慢性胃炎患者的标本中发现了螺旋（即弯曲）杆菌。可以得出结论，螺旋杆菌是慢性胃炎的病原。Example analysisIn this example,specimens from two male patients do not provide sufficient evidence from which to generalize about the pathogeny o
41、f chronic gastritis.On the other hand,the evidence is unrepresentative because it excluded female patients.Hasty generalization is often recognizable thanks to the use of words such as“all,”“always,”“everybody”,or“none.”2.Non Sequitur 不当结论（无逻辑联系的推论）不当结论（无逻辑联系的推论）Non sequitur is Latin for“it does not
42、 follow.”A non sequitur occurs when the cause and the conclusion are not logically connected.A non sequitur commonly consists of two parts,an opening statement and a seemingly logical conclusion of that statement.当结论与起因无逻辑联系就会导致不当结论。不当结论有两部分构成：前提陈述和不当结论。Example of Non SequiturI am old enough to figh
43、t for my country;therefore,Im old enough to smoke and drink.The traffic fatality rate on the German autobahn(高速公路)is comparatively low with the speed limits of eighty miles an hour and more.This proves that China could safely raise its speed limits.德国高速公路的限速在80英里和80英里以上，而车祸死亡率比较低。这说明中国提高其限速是安全的。Exam
44、ple analysisThe conclusions of the sentences might be true,but none of the statements shows any direct connection between claims and the conclusions.As in the second example,the Germans may follow the traffic regulations more strictly,or the German autobahn may have better conditions than the Chines
45、e expressway.These sentences reflect simplistic thinking rather than logical reasoning.3.Begging the Question 诉诸公众（以假设作诉诸公众（以假设作为论据的辩论，回避问题实质）为论据的辩论，回避问题实质）Begging the question means to take something for granted without proof.It assumes that the audiences share basic assumptions and beliefs with th
46、e arguer when in fact they do not.When you find someone using such phrases as“Everyone knows,”“We all agree,”“Its obvious that,”or someone trying to pass off a statement that is no more than an opinion as a fact,youre facing a question-begging argument.诉诸公众是指观点持有人假想听众和自己持有相同观点而实际并非如此，这是想当然的逻辑谬误。“尽人皆
47、知”，“所有人都同意”，“再明显不过”之类的表达，与将个人观点当做事实的行为都属于诉诸公众。Examples of Begging the QuestionEveryone knows that the 2000s will be a poor time to go into medicine because government regulation is ruining the profession.人人都知道21世纪不是干医疗的好时期，因为政府的规定毁了这一行业。Since all educated people now know English because it is the ac
48、cepted international language,college students in the United States do not need to learn another language.Example analysisIn the first example,the arguer is trying to pass off a claim as a fact by resorting“everyone knows”.(通过使用“人人都知道”试图把主张冒充为事实)The author should provide a lot of evidence to support
49、 the claim before reaching the conclusion.In the second example,the assertion that all educated people now know English is inaccurate.English is indeed the accepted international language for pilots,mariners,and scientists,but most of the people in the world cannot read or speak it.Therefore,both ar
50、guments beg the question.4.False Analogy 类比失当类比失当Analogy is a part-by-part comparison of the similarities between things that are otherwise dissimilar.Analogies can be invaluable in helping readers to understand abstract or elusive ideas难以捉摸的 and concepts.类比是指将不同事物之间相同的部分进行比较以帮助读者理解抽象、难以捉摸的概念。Exampl
