答案+解析：

PART I?LISTENING COMPREHENSION

SECTION A

Models forArguments

Good morning,everyone. My name is David and I am good at arguing. So welcome to ourintroductory lecture on argumentation. Why do we want to argue? Why do we tryto convince other people to believe things that they don’t want to believe? Andis that even a nice thing to do? Is that a nice way to treat other human being,try and make them think something they don’t want to think? Well, my answer isgoing to make reference to three models for arguments.?

[1]?The firstmodel?—?let’scall this the dialectical model—?is that we think ofarguments as war. And you know what that’s like. There is a lot of screamingand shouting and winning and losing. [2]?And that’s not really a very helpfulmodel for arguing, but it’s a pretty common and fixed one.?I guess you musthave seen that type of arguing many times?—in the street, on the bus or in the subway.

Let’s move on tothe second model. The second model for arguing regards arguments as proofs.Think of a mathematician’s argument. Here’s my argument. Does it work? Is itany good? [3]?Are the premises warranted??Are the inferences valid? Doesthe conclusion follow the premises? [4]?No opposition, no adversariality—?not necessarily anyarguing in the adversarial sense.

[5]?And there’sa third model to keep in mind that I think is going to be very helpful, andthat is arguments as performances,?arguments as being in front of anaudience. We can think of a politician trying to present a position, trying toconvince the audience of something. But there’s another twist on this modelthat I really think is important; namely, that when we argue before anaudience, [6]?sometimes the audience has a more participatory role in theargument:?that is, you present your arguments in front of an audience whoare like juries that make a judgment and decide the case. [5]?Let’s callthis model the rhetorical model,?[7]?where you have to tailor yourargument to the audience at hand.

Of those three,the argument as war is the dominant one. It dominates how we talk aboutarguments, it dominates how we think about arguments, and because of that, [8]?Itshapes how we argue, our actual conduct in arguments.?We want strongarguments, arguments that have a lot of punch, arguments that are right ontarget. We want to have our defenses up and our strategies all in order. Wewant killer arguments

That’sthe kind of argument we want. It is the dominant way of thinking aboutarguments. When I'm talking about arguments, that’s probably what you thoughtof, the adversarial model.

????? Butthe war metaphor, the war paradigm or model for thinking about arguments, has,I think, negative effects on how we argue. [9]?First, it elevates tacticsover substance.?You can take a class in logic argumentation. You learn allabout the strategies that people use to try and win arguments and that makesarguing adversarial; it’s polarizing. And the only foreseeable outcomes aretriumph?—?glorioustriumph?—?ordisgraceful defeat. I think those are very destructive effects, and worst ofall, [10]?it seems to prevent things like negotiation and collaboration.?Um,I think the argument-as-war metaphor inhibits those other kinds of resolutionsto argumentation.

[11]And finally?—?this is really the worst thing—?arguments don’t seemto get us anywhere: they’re dead ends. We don’t getanywhere. Oh, and one more thing. [12]?That is, if argument is war, thenthere’s also an implicit aspect of meaning?—?leaning with losing.

And let me explainwhat I mean. Suppose you and I have an argument. You believe a proposition andI don’t. And I say, “Well, why do you believe that?” And you give me yourreasons. And I object and say, “Well, what about?” And you answer my objection.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, I’ve objected,I’ve questioned, [13]?I’ve raised all sorts of questions from an opposite perspectiveand in every case you’ve responded to my satisfaction. And so at the end ofthe day, I say, “You know what? I guess you’re right.” Maybe finally I lost myargument. But isn’t it also a process of learning? So you see arguments mayalso have positive effects.

[14]?So, howcan we find new ways to achieve those positive effects??We need to think ofnew kinds of arguments. Here I have some suggestions. If we want to think ofnew kinds of arguments, what we need to do is think of new kinds of arguers?—?people who argue.

So try this: Thinkof all the roles that people play in arguments. There’s the proponent and theopponent in an adversarial, dialectical argument. There’s the audience inrhetorical arguments. There’s the reasoner in arguments as proofs. All thesedifferent roles. Now, can you imagine an argument in which you are the arguer,but you’re also in the audience, watching yourself argue? Can you imagineyourself watching yourself argue? [15]?That means you need to be supportedby yourself.?Even when you lose the argument, still, at the end of theargument, you could say, “Wow, that was a good argument!” Can you do that? I thinkyou can. In this way, you’ve been supported by yourself.

Up till now, Ihave 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, I’ve hadmany, many colleagues who have been willing to step up and provide thatpractice for me.

OK. To sum up, intoday's lecture, I have introduced three models of arguments. [1]?The firstmodel called the dialectical model.?The second one is the model ofarguments as proofs. [5]?And the last one called the rhetorical model, themodel of arguments as performances.?I have also emphasized that, though theadversarial type of arguments is quite common, we can still make argumentsproduce some positive effects. Next time I will continue our discussion on theprocess of arguing.

?

1. the dialectical model

【詳解】錄音提到第一種模式叫做辯證模式?(thedialectical model)，答案可直接從錄音中聽到，故本題答案可填入錄音原詞thedialectical model。

2. common and fixed

【詳解】錄音中在介紹完第一種辯論模式后，對(duì)其進(jìn)行了評(píng)價(jià)，指出這并非一種非常有用的辯論方式?(notreally a very helpful model for…)，但卻是一種常見和固定的模式?(common and fixed)。該題要注意語義轉(zhuǎn)折，答案可填入錄音原詞?common and fixed。

3. premises

【詳解】在介紹第二種辯論模式時(shí)，演講者給出了自己的辯論模式示范，其中列舉了一系列問題，其中第三個(gè)問題說到前提是否正當(dāng)合理?(Arethe premises warranted?)。本題填入premises。

4. opposition // arguing

【詳解】在介紹第二種辯論模式時(shí)，演講者除了列舉一系列問題作為示范外，最后還總結(jié)道：這種辯論模式中不涉及反對(duì)意見和觀點(diǎn)碰撞(Noopposition, no adversariality)，更沒有任何敵對(duì)意義上的辯論?(not necessarily anyarguing…)。提綱上的第4題幾乎是對(duì)錄音原詞的復(fù)現(xiàn)，填arguing最便捷，填?opposition也可。

5. arguments as performances // the rhetorical model

【詳解】本題問辯論的第三種模式。演講者首先提到這種模式是argumentsas performances?(表演式辯論)，隨后又提到可稱這種方式為therhetorical model。本題按錄音原詞填入二者中任意一個(gè)均可。

6. participatory // participating // the participant //taking part

【詳解】在簡(jiǎn)要介紹完第三種辯論模式的基本情況后，演講者話鋒一轉(zhuǎn)，指出該模式有一種例外情況，即有時(shí)在辯論時(shí)，觀眾在辯論中的參與度更高(sometimes the audience has a more participatory role...)。提綱中此空格前為be動(dòng)詞is，故可填人participating與in構(gòu)成詞組,也可填入其他表相同意思的表達(dá)。

7. be tailored to // cater for

【詳解】錄音中，在具體解釋第三種辯論模式的另一名稱后，演講者指出這種模式下必須迎合聽眾?(haveto tailor your argument to the audience)。錄音中?tailor的受動(dòng)者argument在提綱中作為主語出現(xiàn)，故本題需將錄音中的主動(dòng)語態(tài)改變?yōu)楸粍?dòng)語態(tài)，填入betailored to。本題也可填caterfor。

8. how we argue // our actual conduct

【詳解】在介紹完三種辯論模式的基本情況后，演講者進(jìn)行小結(jié)時(shí)指出，第一種爭(zhēng)戰(zhàn)式的辯論模式一直是我們主要的辯論模式，因此它塑造了我們辯論的模式以及我們?cè)谵q論中的實(shí)際行為。本題填入how weargue和ouractual conduct均可。

9. tactics // strategies

【詳解】在談及第一種爭(zhēng)戰(zhàn)式的辯論模式的消極影響時(shí)，演講者指出第一點(diǎn)就是將策略置于內(nèi)容之前?(itelevates tactics over substance)，即該辯論模式強(qiáng)調(diào)策略，故填入tactics，也可填?strategies，注意用復(fù)數(shù)。

10. negotiation and collaboration

【詳解】在介紹爭(zhēng)戰(zhàn)式的辯論模式的消極影響時(shí)，演講者特別指出，更消極的影響是該辯論模式會(huì)阻止一些事情發(fā)生，如協(xié)商與合作?(negotiationand collaboration)，故該空格可填入negotiationand collaboration。

11.?There’sno solution // progress

【詳解】本題考查爭(zhēng)戰(zhàn)式辯論模式的最壞消極影響。對(duì)此，演講者的原話是：這種辯論模式似乎使我們寸步難行?(don’t.get us anywhere)；它們是死胡同(they’redead ends)，不會(huì)帶領(lǐng)我們走向任何地方。演講者此處重在說明此種模式使人止步不前，沒有進(jìn)展，可將答案概括為there’sno solution / progress。

12. learning with losing

【詳解】本題考查爭(zhēng)戰(zhàn)式的辯論模式的隱含意味。演講者在介紹完此種辯論模式最壞的消極影響后，特別指出這種模式背后還有隱含意味，即從失敗中學(xué)習(xí)，故本題填入learningwith losing。

13. questions // counter-considerations //counter-arguments // objections // arguments in opposition

【詳解】錄音中，演講者在講完從失敗中學(xué)習(xí)這一概念后，給出了具體的解釋，并假設(shè)了一個(gè)兩人辯論的場(chǎng)景：其中一方提出問題或反對(duì)、質(zhì)疑，另一方進(jìn)行解答。提綱中已給出?one providing reasons，則空格中可填入錄音原詞?questions，與?raising構(gòu)成搭配表示“提出問題”。也可根據(jù)雙方持不同意見這個(gè)辯論場(chǎng)景，概括填寫諸如counter-considerations，counter-arguments，objections，?arguments inopposition等表示“反對(duì)意見”的表達(dá)。

14. achieve positive effects

【詳解】演講者在介紹完?duì)帒?zhàn)式的辯論模式也能產(chǎn)生積極效應(yīng)?(learningwith losing)?后，緊接著提出了建議以獲取此類積極效應(yīng)。錄音中直接提到了So,how... to achieve those positive effects??本空格可原詞填人achieve positiveeffects。

15. support oneself / yourself

【詳解】錄音中演講者提出了三種獲取積極效應(yīng)的建議，其中包括設(shè)想新辯題?(thinkof new kinds of arguments)，角色扮演以及角色扮演過程中支持自

己的觀點(diǎn)?(be supportedby yourself)。提綱中已出現(xiàn)前兩個(gè)建議，故本空格可填入supportoneself / yourself，也可填beself-supported。