Build an argument that can answer a challenge · 构建一个能够回应质疑的论证
| English | 中文 | Pinyin · 拼音 |
|---|---|---|
| argument/ˈɑːɡjuːmənt/ | 论证 | lùn zhèng |
| counterexample/ˈkaʊntəreɡzæmpl/ | 反例 | fǎn lì |
| qualification/ˌkwɒlɪfɪˈkeɪʃn/ | 限定 | xiàn dìng |
A confident claim meets a difficult case
- A student says experts should always be trusted. Another asks about two experts who disagree. A useful argument needs a reason for trust and an explanation of what happens when those reasons conflict.
- An argument 论证 connects evidence and reasons to a conclusion. Begin with the exact question your teacher has approved, rather than a general speech about experts.
自信的主张面对棘手案例
- 一名学生声称专家理应始终被信任。另一名学生则提出两位专家意见相左的情况。一个有力的论证需要提供信任的理由，并解释当这些理由发生冲突时会怎样。
- 一种论证将证据和理由连接至结论。应从教师批准的精确问题入手，而非泛泛而谈专家的通用演讲。
Give the claim a clear scope
- “Trust experts” hides the conditions. A more precise claim asks whether relevant expertise, transparent methods and checks by others give a reason to trust a particular conclusion.
- State what your example is meant to show. A specialist’s medical training may matter for a diagnosis, but it does not automatically establish expertise in bridge design.
为论点确立明确范围
- “信任专家”这一说法掩盖了具体条件。更精确的提问应是：相关的专业知识、透明的方法以及他人的核查，是否足以让人相信某一特定结论。
- 说明你的例子旨在证明什么。专家在医学领域的训练可能对诊断至关重要，但这并不能自动确立其在桥梁设计方面的专业权威。
Which claim has the clearest scope? · 哪项主张具有最清晰的适用范围？
The second claim states conditions that can be examined. · 第二个主张提出了可检验的条件。
An expert’s title alone settles a disagreement between specialists. · 仅凭专家的头衔即可解决专家间的分歧
Compare the relevant evidence, methods and uncertainty instead of relying only on titles. · 应比较相关证据、方法及不确定性，而非仅依赖头衔
Let a challenge test the reasoning
- A counterexample 反例 is a case that challenges a general claim. Two equally relevant experts may disagree because the evidence is incomplete or their methods differ.
- Explain why the case matters. It may show that trust should depend on reasons and the available checks, rather than a title alone. Merely mentioning disagreement does not explain its effect.
让质疑来检验推理过程
- 反例 是一种挑战普遍性论点的案例。两位同等相关的专家可能因证据不足或方法不同而产生分歧。
- 解释该案例的重要性。它可能表明，信任应基于理由和可进行的核查，而非仅仅依靠头衔。仅提及分歧本身并不能解释其实际影响。
What makes an example a useful challenge? · 什么使一个例子成为有效的挑战？
A relevant challenge examines what the claim assumes or covers. · 一个相关质疑会审视该主张所预设或涵盖的内容。
Revise the conclusion using the challenge
- A qualification 限定 makes the conditions of a claim clearer. You might trust relevant expertise while comparing the methods and uncertainty when specialists disagree.
- Do not replace reasoning with “both sides are right”. Decide what the evidence justifies, which limit changes that decision and what further check would help.
根据质疑修正结论
- 限定 能使论点的条件更加清晰。你或许可以信任相关专业知识，但在专家出现分歧时，需同时比较其方法与不确定性。
- 不要以“双方都有道理”来替代推理。应决定证据支持何种判断，何种限制改变了这一判断，以及何种进一步的核查会有所帮助。
Why might a recent inspection matter more than an old photograph? · 为什么最近的检查比旧照片更重要？
Relevance to the current decision matters; method and limits still need checking. · 与当前决策的相关性很重要；方法和局限性仍需核查。
Check the whole line of reasoning
- Read each paragraph and ask how it helps answer the exact question. Include a specific example, the inference you draw from it and a relevant limitation.
- Use the prescribed title for the correct assessment session if this becomes TOK essay preparation. These reasoning steps do not replace the official task requirements or teacher feedback rules.
检查整条推理链
- 阅读每一段落，并思考它如何有助于回答具体问题。应包含一个具体实例、由此得出的推论以及一个相关局限。
- 如果将此作为TOK论文准备，请使用规定的评估会话标题。这些推理步骤不能替代官方任务要求或教师反馈规则。
Match each part of an argument to its role. · 将论证的每个部分与其作用相匹配。
The parts should form a connected answer to the question. · 各部分应形成对问题的连贯回答。
Which checks help revise an essay argument? · 哪些核查有助于修改论文论证？
Sources need an explained role in the argument; citation alone is insufficient. · 来源需要在论证中阐明其作用；仅靠引用是不够的。
Two engineers disagree about the condition of a small footbridge. One has inspected it recently; the other relies on an older photograph. Their titles alone do not settle the issue. The recent inspection may provide more relevant evidence, but you still need to examine the inspection method and the claim’s uncertainty. The conclusion is conditional: relevant expertise can support trust when its evidence and methods are appropriate to the decision.
两名工程师对一座小型人行桥的状况存在分歧。一人最近进行了检查；另一人则依赖一张旧照片。仅凭头衔无法解决这一问题。最近的检查可能提供更多相关证据，但仍需审视检查方法及结论的不确定性。结论是条件性的：当证据和方法与决策相当时，相关专业经验可以为信任提供支持。
A claim, an opposing claim and a final sentence are not yet a developed argument. Explain how the challenge changes your reasons or the scope of the conclusion.
一个论点、一个对立论点和一句总结语并不构成一个完整的论证。请解释该质疑如何改变你的理由或结论的范围。
Give a reasoned claim, test it with a specific challenge and explain a conditional conclusion that answers the question.
提出一个有理有据的论点，用具体质疑加以检验，并给出一个能回答问题的条件式结论。