英文书《Asking the right questions: a guide to critical thinking》,即《学会提问:批判性思维导读》。这周读完的收获是淘金式的阅读方式关键在于对话参与,即interactive involvement,这也好想象,把自己带入进书中,与作者对话乃至吵架,必然是研究得更深入一点。
(1)
182
prestigious job受尊重的职业
repel crimes, commit crimes 击退犯罪和犯罪,一对反义词
What good would stronger laws do when the courts have demonstrated that they will not enforce them?
demonstrated 表明
分析:XXX有什么好处,是这样表达的。因为这句话的深意就是反对控枪再严格的(enforce them)
(2)
193
By asking the right questions, you would discover a number of possible weaknesses in the communicator's argument.
分析:问对问题,你就要发现这个讲述者论点里可能的弱点。
书中是分点说的:
1) 作者用词有“压倒性的大多数”“典型杀人犯”,这么说是为什么?
2) 作者用词有“gun owners”这个词究竟是什么含义,拥有什么种类的枪才算TA说的gun owners?
3) 作者引用的研究有多准确?样本足够大、足够随机和多样吗?
How adequate were the cited research studies? Were the samples sufficiently large, random and diverse?
4) 作者用的又大又准确的数字,TA撒谎了吗?
Has the author lied with statistics by impressing us with large, rather precise numbers, like 581,000 and 645,000?
5) 作者光说不控枪的好处,控枪有没有好处呢?作者有没有隐瞒反驳他观点的研究成果?
Have important studies that disagree with the author's position been omitted?
6) 作者举了一些名人有枪的例子,那么就意味着有枪是应该的吗?
7) 作者为什么不解释对现有法律的加强改进可以展现他对持枪增加带来的危害的敏感。下面这段话比较复杂,没看太明白。
Why did the person writing the essay fail to explain how we could encourage better enforcement of existing gun control laws to demonstrate his sensitivity to the harm that guns somtimes facilitate?
网友评论