Relevant and Sufficient Evidence · 相关且充分的证据
Evidence is used for a purpose
- Writers use evidence strategically and purposefully to illustrate, clarify, exemplify, associate, amplify or qualify a point.
- Six purposes, and they are not the same job.
- Knowing which one a quotation is doing tells you what your commentary has to say about it.
A quotation cannot do all six jobs at once; even evidence deserves a job description.
证据是为某个目的而使用的
- 写作者有策略、有目的地使用证据,以说明、澄清、举例、关联、放大或限定某个要点。
- 六种目的,而它们不是同一项工作。
- 知道某处引文在做哪一种,就知道你的评述该就它说些什么。
一段引文不能同时干六份活；证据也该有自己的岗位说明。
Select all · 所有 the purposes the CED lists for evidence. · 选择所有CED列出的证据目的。
Clarify, associate and amplify complete the six; summarising is not one of them. · 澄清、关联和增强完成了六项；总结不在其中。
Effective means explained
- Evidence is effective when the writer uses commentary to explain a logical relationship between the evidence and the claim.
- So an unexplained quotation is not weak evidence — by this definition it is not yet effective evidence at all.
- The quotation does not argue; the sentence after it does.
有效意味着被解释过
- 当写作者用评述解释了证据与主张之间的逻辑关系时,证据才是有效的。
- 因此未经解释的引文不是薄弱的证据——按这个定义,它根本还不算有效的证据。
- 引文本身不作论证;论证的是它后面那一句。
Evidence is effective when... · 当证据有效时……
The quotation does not argue; the sentence after it does. · 引文本身并不论证；其后的句子才进行论证。
Sufficient means quantity and quality
- Evidence is sufficient when its quantity and quality provide apt support for the line of reasoning.
- Both are named: five weak quotations are not sufficient, and one perfect one usually is not either.
- "Apt" is the standard — fitted to this reasoning, not impressive in general.
充分意味着数量与质量
- 当证据的数量与质量为推理线索提供了恰当的支撑时,它才是充分的。
- 两者都被点名:五处薄弱的引文不算充分,而一处完美的引文通常也不算。
- "恰当"是标准——契合这条推理,而不是笼统地令人印象深刻。
Select all · 所有 the things sufficiency depends on. · 选择所有充分性所依赖的因素。
Five weak quotations are not sufficient, and one perfect one usually is not either. · 五条弱引文不足以构成充分性，而一条完美引文通常也不够。
An unexplained quotation is not effective evidence at all. The CED's definition makes effectiveness depend on the commentary that explains the logical relationship — so a paragraph that quotes and moves on has supplied text, not support.
**未经解释的引文根本不算有效的证据。**CED 的定义使有效性取决于解释逻辑关系的评述——因此引用完就往下走的段落,提供的是文本,不是支撑。
Which purpose is this evidence serving? · 这条证据服务于何种目的？
Sort each use by the CED's purpose word. · 按CED的目的词对每种用途进行排序。
You must always form your line of reasoning before looking for evidence. · 你必须在寻找证据之前先形成你的推理线路。
The process is recursive — an interpretation can emerge from analysing evidence first. · 这个过程是递归的——解释可能首先从分析证据中浮现。
The process is recursive
- Developing an interpretation is a recursive process: it can emerge from analysing evidence and then forming a line of reasoning, or from forming a line of reasoning and then finding evidence.
- So there is no single correct order of work, and either direction is legitimate.
- What is not legitimate is keeping a claim the evidence stopped supporting.
这个过程是递归的
- 发展一种阐释是一个递归的过程:它可以从分析证据开始、继而形成推理线索,也可以先形成推理线索、再去寻找证据。
- 因此工作没有唯一正确的顺序,两个方向都成立。
- 不成立的是:抱着一个证据已不再支持的主张不放。
Match each use of the same quotation to its purpose. · 将同一条引文的每种用途与其目的匹配。
Same words, three commentaries — the purpose decides what you have to write. · 相同的词语，三种评论——目的决定了你要写什么。
An evidence check
- For each quotation, name which of the six purposes it serves.
- Check there is a sentence explaining its relationship to the claim.
- Then ask whether the quantity and the quality are apt for this line of reasoning.
证据检查
- 对每处引文,说出它服务于六种目的中的哪一种。
- 检查是否有一句话在解释它与主张之间的关系。
- 然后问数量与质量对这条推理线索是否恰当。
Same quotation, two purposes. To exemplify: "a small clerk of a man" is one instance of the narrator's habit of ranking. To qualify: it shows the habit is not malice but reflex — he says it about someone he likes. The commentary is different in each case, and the quotation alone said neither.
同一处引文,两种目的。用来举例:*"一个小职员似的人"*是叙述者排序习惯的一个实例。用来限定:它显示这一习惯并非恶意而是反射——他是在说一个他喜欢的人。两种情况下评述完全不同,而单凭引文本身,两者都没有说出来。
Evidence is used to illustrate, clarify, exemplify, associate, amplify or qualify. It is effective only when commentary explains its logical relationship to the claim, and sufficient when its quantity and quality aptly support the line of reasoning. The process is recursive — either direction is legitimate.
证据用来说明、澄清、举例、关联、放大或限定。只有当评述解释了它与主张之间的逻辑关系时,它才有效;当其数量与质量恰当地支撑推理线索时,它才充分。这个过程是递归的——两个方向都成立。