How Claims Are Qualified · 主张如何被限定
| English | 中文 | Pinyin · 拼音 |
|---|---|---|
| oversimplification or generalisation/ˌəʊvəˌsɪmplɪfɪˈkeɪʃn ɔː ˌdʒenərəlaɪˈzeɪʃn/ | 过度简化与以偏概全 | guò dù jiǎn huà yǔ yǐ piān gài quán |
| ongoing discourse/ˈɒŋɡəʊɪŋ ˈdɪskɔːs/ | 持续讨论 | chí xù tǎo lùn |
| avoid expressing claims in absolute terms/əˈvɔɪd ekˈspresɪŋ kleɪmz ɪn ˈæbsəluːt tɜːmz/ | 绝对化表述 | jué duì huà biǎo shù |
The stronger-sounding claim is the weaker one
- Schools should ban phones invites a single exception and falls to it.
- Schools should restrict phone use during instructional time does not.
- Students assume force wins arguments. Precision does.
An absolute claim is a balloon: one small counterexample and the argument starts to hiss.
听起来更强硬的主张,其实更弱
- 学校应当禁止手机招来一个例外,便被它击倒。
- 学校应当在教学时段限制手机使用则不会。
- 学生以为强硬能赢下论争。实际赢的是精确。
绝对化的论点像气球：一个小小的反例，就让它开始漏气。
Where oversimplification comes from
- A lack of understanding of the complexities of a subject leads to oversimplification or generalisation 过度简化与以偏概全.
- So an unqualified claim is not just risky — it is diagnostic.
- A reader takes it as a sign the writer has not looked closely.
过度简化从何而来
- 对某一主题复杂性的理解不足会导致过度简化与以偏概全(oversimplification or generalisation)。
- 因此未加限定的主张不只是有风险——它还具有诊断意义。
- 读者会把它当作写作者没有细看的标志。
The CED links oversimplification to a lack of understanding of a subject's complexities. · CED将过度简化归因于对学科复杂性的理解不足。
That is why a sweeping claim tells a reader something about the writer. · 这就是为什么宏大主张向读者传达了关于作者的信息。
Arguments are part of a conversation
- Because arguments are usually part of an ongoing discourse 持续讨论, effective ones avoid expressing claims in absolute terms 绝对化表述.
- Others have already argued about this, and some of them were not fools.
- An absolute claim implicitly says nobody before you saw anything — which is rarely true and never persuasive.
论证是对话的一部分
- 由于论证通常是持续讨论(ongoing discourse)的一部分,有效的论证会避免以绝对措辞表述主张(absolute terms)。
- 别人已经就此争论过,而其中有些人并不愚蠢。
- 绝对化的主张隐含地宣称此前无人看出任何东西——这很少属实,也从不具有说服力。
Qualified or absolute? · 限定性还是绝对性？
Sort each claim by whether it names the ground it stands on. · 根据每个主张是否指明立足点对其进行排序。
Effective arguments avoid absolute terms mainly because... · 有效论证避免绝对术语主要是因为……
Others have argued about this before you; an absolute claim implies nobody saw anything. · 在你之前他人已对此争论过；绝对主张暗示无人发现任何事实。
An unqualified claim is diagnostic, not just risky. The CED links oversimplification directly to a lack of understanding of the complexities — so a sweeping claim tells a reader something about the writer, not only about the subject.
未加限定的主张具有诊断意义,而不只是有风险。CED 把过度简化直接与对复杂性理解不足联系起来——因此一个笼统的主张告诉读者的,不只是关于这个主题的事,还有关于写作者的事。
Select all · 所有 the tools writers use to qualify a claim. · 选择所有作家用于限定主张的工具。
Paragraph length does not limit a claim's scope. · 段落长度不限制主张的范围。
A qualifier names the ____ a claim actually stands on. · 限定词指明了主张实际立足的____。
In most cases, where X holds, for this population — each states a condition. · 大多数情况下，当X成立时，针对这一群体——每一项都陈述了一个条件。
The tools of qualification
- Writers use words, phrases and clauses as modifiers to qualify or limit the scope of an argument.
- In most cases, where X holds, for this population, unless, to the extent that.
- Each names the ground the claim actually stands on.
限定的工具
- 写作者使用作为修饰成分的词语、短语与分句来限定或限制论证的范围。
- 在多数情况下、在 X 成立之处、对这一人群而言、除非、就……而言。
- 每一个都点出了这项主张实际立足的范围。
Match each qualification pattern to what it tells a reader. · 将每种限定模式与其传达给读者的信息匹配。
A qualifier is a rhetorical choice, so it is evidence about the writer as well as the claim. · 限定词是一种修辞选择，因此它既是关于主张的证据，也是关于作者本身的证据。
Spotting qualification in a text
- A qualifier is a rhetorical choice, so it is analysable: what did the writer decline to claim?
- A writer who qualifies heavily is either being careful or signalling that the evidence is thin.
- A writer who qualifies nothing has either very strong evidence or has not read the other side.
在文本中识别限定
- 限定语是一项修辞选择,因而可以分析:写作者拒绝主张的是什么?
- 大量使用限定的写作者,要么是谨慎,要么是在暗示证据单薄。
- 毫不限定的写作者,要么证据极强,要么没有读过另一方。
"Homework does not help students." One study of one subject defeats it. "Homework set without feedback does not improve outcomes for students who are already behind" names its ground — and the same evidence now supports rather than sinks it.
*"家庭作业对学生没有帮助。"一项针对单一学科的研究就能击倒它。"没有反馈的家庭作业,对本已落后的学生并不能改善成绩"*点明了自己的范围——同样的证据此刻支撑它,而不再击沉它。
Oversimplification comes from not understanding the complexities, and effective arguments avoid absolute terms because they join an ongoing discourse. Writers qualify with words, phrases and clauses that limit scope — and a qualifier in a text is itself a rhetorical choice worth analysing.
过度简化源于对复杂性理解不足,而有效的论证避免绝对措辞,因为它们加入的是一场持续的讨论。写作者用限制范围的词语、短语与分句来限定主张——而文本中的一个限定语,本身就是值得分析的修辞选择。