1、2016 TEM-8 LISTENING COMPREHENSION 1 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:
2、(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 effec
3、ts include: (9) _ are emphasized winning is the only purpose this type of arguments prevent (10) _ the worst thing is (11) _ 2016 TEM-8 LISTENING COMPREHENSION 2 implication from arguments as war: (12) _ e.g., one providing reasons and the other raising (13) _ the other one is finally persuaded Sugg
4、estions on new ways to (14) _ of arguments think of new kinds of arguments change roles in arguments (15) _ 2016 TEM-8 LISTENING COMPREHENSION 3 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 inte
5、rview? A. Maggies university life. B. Her moms life at Harvard. C. Maggies view on studying with Mom. D. Maggies opinion on her moms 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 ap
6、ply 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. Im
7、agination. 2016 TEM-8 LISTENING COMPREHENSION 4 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 Maggies grades. Now, liste
8、n 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. B
9、ecause kids find it hard to adapt to college life. 7. What would Maggies mom like to be after college? A. Real estate agent. B. Financier. C. Lawyer. D. Teacher. 8. How does Maggies mom feel about sitting in class after 30 years? A. Delighted. 2016 TEM-8 LISTENING COMPREHENSION 5 B. Excited. C. Bore
10、d. D. Frustrated. 9. What is most challenging for Maggies mom? 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 ones career path? A. Unsuccessful. B. Gradual. C. Frustrating. D. Passionate
11、. 2016 TEM-8 LISTENING COMPREHENSION 6 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 actua
12、l conduct 9. tactics / strategies 10. negotiation and collaboration 11. theres 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
13、 C B 2016 TEM-8 LISTENING COMPREHENSION 7 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 dont want to believe? And is that
14、even a nice thing to do? Is that a nice way to treat other human being, try and make them think something they dont want to think? Well, my answer is going to make reference to three models for arguments. (1) The first model lets call this the dialectical model is that we think of arguments as war.
15、And you know what thats like. There is a lot of screaming and shouting and winning and losing. (2) And thats not really a very helpful model arguing, but its a pretty common and fixed one. I guess you must have seen that type of arguing many times in the street, on the bus or in the subway. Lets mov
16、e on to the second model. The second model for arguing regards arguments as proofs. Think of a mathematicians argument. Heres my argument. Does it work? Is it any good? (3) Are the premises（前提） warranted? Are the inferences（推论） ) valid? Does the conclusion follow the premises? (4) No opposition, no
17、adversariality（对抗） not necessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense. (5) And theres a third model to keep in mind that I think is going to be very helpful, and that is arguments as performances, arguments as being in front of an audience. We can think of a politician trying to present a position
18、, trying to convince the audience of something. 2016 TEM-8 LISTENING COMPREHENSION 8 But theres another twist（转折） on this model that I really think is important; namely, that when we argue before an audience, (6) sometimes the audience has a more participatory role in the argument; that is, you pres
19、ent you arguments in front of an audience who are like juries（陪审团） that make a judgment and decide the case. (5) Lets call this model the rhetorical model, (7) where you have to tailor（迎合） your argument to the audience at hand. Of those three, the argument as war is the dominant one. It dominates ho
20、w we talk about arguments, it dominates how we think about arguments, and because of 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. Thats the kind of argument we want. It is the dominant way of
21、thinking about arguments. When Im talking about arguments, thats probably what you thought of, the adversarial model. But the war metaphor, the war paradigm（范例） or model for thinking about arguments, has, I think, negative effects on how we argue. (9) First, it elevates tactics over substance. You c
22、an take a class in logic argumentation. You learn all about the strategies that people use to try and win arguments and that makes arguing adversarial; its polarizing（分化的）. And the only foreseeable outcomes are triumph glorious triumph or disgraceful（可耻的） defeat. I think those are very destructive e
23、ffects, 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 resolutions to argumentation. (11) And finally this is really the worst thing arguments dont seem to 2016 TEM-8 LISTENING COMPR
24、EHENSION 9 get us anywhere; theyre dead ends（死胡同）. We dont anywhere. Oh, and one more thing. (12) That is, if argument is war, then theres 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 proposition（命题） a
25、nd I dont. 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, Ive objected, Ive questioned, (
26、13) Ive raised all sorts of questions from an opposite perspective and in every case youve responded to my satisfaction. And so at the end of the day, I say, “You know what? I guess youre right.” Maybe finally I lost my argument. But isnt it also a process of learning? So you see arguments may also
27、have positive effects. (14) So, how can we find new ways to achieve those positive effects? We need to think of new kinds of arguments. Here I have some suggestion. If we want to think of new kinds of argument, what we need to do is think of new kinds of arguers people who argue. So try this: Think
28、of all the roles that people play in arguments. (1) (5) Theres the proponent and the opponent in an adversarial, dialectical argument（对话式论证） . Theres the audience in rhetorical arguments. Theres the reasoner in arguments as proofs. All these different roles. Now, can you imagine an argument in which
29、 you are the arguer, but youre also in the audience, watching yourself argue? Can you imagine yourself watching yourself argue? (15) That means you need to be supported 2016 TEM-8 LISTENING COMPREHENSION 10 by yourself. Even when you lose the argument, still, at the end of the argument, you could sa
30、y, “Wow, that was a good argument!” Can you do that? I think you can. In this way, youve been supported by yourself. Up till now, I have 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, Ive had many, many c
31、olleagues who have been willing to step up and provide that practice for me. Ok. To sum up, in todays lecture, I have introduced three models of arguments. (1) The first model is called the dialectical model. The second one is the model of arguments as proofs. (5) And the last one is called the rhetorical model, the model of arguments as performances. I have also emphasized that, though the adversarial type of arguments is quite common, we can still make arguments produce some positive effects. Next time I will continue our discussion on the process of arguing.
