经常刷题的同学会在逻辑单题当中不断的看到熟悉的面孔，倒不是说内容一模一样，而是原文的论证结构，分析方法高度相似，而出题人则利用不同角度的问法来考察对于论证本身的理解能力和评估论证的能力，那么接下来我们就以几个讲“抄袭”的题目为例，来看看不同的文本的论证方式是如何相似，而对于这样的论证又该如何加强、削弱、评价、假设？
The opening melody of Ludini's trumpet concerto is virtually identical to the opening melody of Bortelli's fifteenth violin concerto. The concerts were composed within a decade of each other, but in what order is not known. Ludini did, however, frequently adopt themes from other composers. Moreover, the melody at issue, while natural to play on a violin, is only awkwardly managed on a trumpet. Thus it is likely that Ludini's concerto was composed after Bortelli's.
先来看这一段论证，仔细的同学可以发现，结论是Ludini抄了Bortelli（L受到了B的影响），而原文所给的前提是：Ludini和Bortelli高度相似。 简单说就是：A和B太像了，所以肯定是一个抄的另一个。
首先先来分析这个论证，这个论证显然试图在解释原因（解释为什么像），所以，接下来，把这个论证抽象出来，我们就可以展开一系列的分析评价了：
A.削弱：A和B像，但不是抄的。那可能是什么原因呢？
B. 假设： A和B像，而像的都是抄的，所以A肯定抄的B（充分假设）；A和B像，且不可能有别的原因导致A和B像，所以是A抄的B（必要假设）
C. 加强： 有哪个条件成立会让我更加相信是抄袭导致他们像（直接加强）；有哪个条件排除了别的非抄袭的原因 （间接加强）
D. 评价：问句回答是或否可以加强或削弱原文
其实，对于这四种问法，我的观点是，学好削弱是基础，要知道我们所说的being critical的一个关键品质就是能提出合理的质疑。比如，就这个论证而言，要想削弱，那我们就得去向：A和B像，有没有可能是因为他们都受到了C的影响（如同《食神》里周星星和唐牛炒菜技术如此像，最后发现原来都是从少林寺那个法号叫“梦遗"的大师学的厨艺）。
那么如果要加强或者假设，自然就变成了：A和B都没有受其他人影响，
而要评价这个论证，就要构建这样的问题：A和B有没有受到C的影响？
我们以刚才第一个题目为例，来看一下问题和选项：
Which of the following, if true, most strengthen the argument?
A. Even trumpet themes that are almost certainly Ludini's own are somewhat awkward to play.
B. Ludini's trumpet concerto was transcribed for flute by a pupil of Bortelli's
C. The melody at issue occurs only in the Ludini and Bortelli's concertos.
D. Ludini is known to have composed of a number of duets for violin and trumpet.
E. In general, melodies natural for the trumpet are awkward to play on the violin.
哪个选项能说明Ludini和Bortelli没有受到其他人的影响呢？显然是C。A选项显然无助于我觉得Ludini是抄Bortelli的，反而会让我更加觉得有可能就是抄别人的。B选项同样的道理，也是起到了相反的效果。D选项与讨论的话题无关，E选项也是，文章说的是从violin到trumpet，而不是相反方向。
按照这个思路举一反三，各位可以试试下面的两个题目。
1. The Thorvald epic was transmitted orally until the early 1300s, when it was written down. Three manuscripts of the epic survive from the 1300s. The latest of these manuscripts, mad in the mid-1300s, has an episode that is not in the second manuscript, but that occurs in the earliest of the three manuscripts in virtually the same words. Therefore, the third manuscripts was probably copied from the first or from a now lost copy of the first.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?
A. Whoever produced the second manuscript did not deliberately omit the missing episode.
B. The earliest of the surviving manuscripts was not the first manuscripts ever made of Thorvald.
C. The texts of the first and the third surviving manuscripts do not derive from the text of a manuscripts, now lost, that precede them both.
D. The first manuscripts was copied at most once before the third manuscript was made.
E. The episode that is missing from the second manuscript was not invented by whoever produced the first manuscript.
2. There are many structural and thematic similarities between Piers Plowman by Langland (1330-1400) and House of Fame by Chaucer (1342-1400), two Middle English poems relating dream visions. Some critics have argued that because a number of the shared elements are uncommon in Middle English poetry, and because Langland’s poem probably predates Chaucer’s by a few years, Chaucer was most likely influenced by Piers Plowman when writing House of Fame.
Which of the following, if true,most seriously weakens the critics’ argument?
A.Piers Plowman is one of Langland’s major works, whereas House of Fame is a minor work of Chaucer’s.
B.House of Fame survives in only three manuscript copies, substantially fewer than the number of manuscript copies that exist of Piers Plowman.
C. Because Piers Plowman became a well-known work in its day, it is likely that the similarities between it and House of Fame were detected by many of the people who read House of Fame soon after Chaucer wrote it.
D. Many of the themes and structures of Piers Plowman are also found in Latin, Italian, French works with which Chaucer could well have been familiar.
E. There is no evidence that Chaucer and Langland ever met or that they corresponded with each other about literary topics.
网友评论