2019年英语一 段落排序

段落 A

These tools can help you win every argument – not in the unhelpful sense of beating your opponents but in the better sense of learning about the issues that divide people. Learning why they disagree with us and learning to talk and work together with them. If we readjust our view of arguments – from a verbal fight or tennis game to a reasoned exchange through which we all gain mutual respect, and understanding – then we change the very nature of what it means to "win" an argument.

这些工具可以帮助你赢得每一场争论——不是以击败对手这种无益的方式，而是以更好的方式：了解分化人们的议题。了解他们为何不同意我们的观点，并学会与他们交谈和共事。如果我们重新调整对争论的看法——从一场言语斗争或网球比赛转变为一种理性交流,通过这种交流我们都获得相互尊重和理解——那么我们就改变了"赢得"争论的本质意义。

段落 B

Of course, many discussions are not so successful. Still, we need to be careful not to accuse opponents of bad arguments too quickly. We need to learn how to evaluate them properly. A large part of evaluation is calling out bad arguments, but we also need to admit good arguments by opponents and to apply the same critical standards to ourselves. Humility requires you to recognize weakness in your own arguments and sometimes also to accept reasons on the opposite side.

当然,许多讨论并不那么成功。尽管如此,我们需要小心,不要过快指责对手的论证不当。我们需要学习如何正确评估它们。评估的很大一部分是指出不当论证,但我们也需要承认对手的优秀论证,并对自己应用同样的批判标准。谦逊要求你认识到自己论证中的弱点,有时还要接受对立方的理由。

段落 C

None of these will be easy but you can start even if others refuse to. Next time you state your position, formulate an argument for what you claim and honestly ask yourself whether your argument is any good. Next time you talk with someone who takes a stand, ask them to give you a reason for their view. Spell out their argument fully and charitably. Assess its strength impartially. Raise objections and listen carefully to their replies.

这些都不容易,但即使其他人拒绝,你也可以开始。下次你陈述自己的立场时,为你的主张构建一个论证,并诚实地问自己这个论证是否有力。下次你与持某种立场的人交谈时,请他们给出支持其观点的理由。完整且善意地阐明他们的论证。公正地评估其力度。提出反对意见并仔细聆听他们的回应。

段落 D

Carnegie would be right if arguments were fights, which is how we often think of them. Like physical fights, verbal fights can leave both sides bloodied. Even when you win, you end up no better off. Your prospects would be almost as dismal if arguments were even just competitions – like, say, tennis games. Pairs of opponents hit the ball back and forth until one winner emerges from all who entered. Everybody else loses. This kind of thinking is why so many people try to avoid arguments, especially about politics and religion.

如果争论是斗争,Carnegie的观点就是对的,而我们常常就是这样看待争论的。就像肢体斗争一样,言语斗争会让双方都遍体鳞伤。即使你赢了,你最终也不会变得更好。如果争论甚至只是竞赛——比如说网球比赛——你的前景也同样暗淡。一对对手来回击球,直到所有参赛者中产生一个赢家。其他所有人都输了。正是这种思维方式导致许多人试图避免争论,尤其是关于政治和宗教的争论。

段落 E

In his 1936 work How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie wrote: "There is only one way…to get the best of an argument – and that is to avoid it." This aversion to arguments is common, but it depends on a mistaken view of arguments that causes profound problems for our personal and social lives – and in many ways misses the point of arguing in the first place.

Dale Carnegie在其1936年的著作《人性的弱点》中写道:"只有一种方法……能在争论中占上风——那就是避免争论。"这种对争论的厌恶很常见,但它基于对争论的错误看法,这种看法给我们的个人和社会生活带来了严重问题——而且在许多方面从一开始就误解了争论的意义。

段落 F

These views of arguments also undermine reason. If you see a conversation as a fight or competition, you can win by cheating as long as you don't get caught. You will be happy to convince people with bad arguments. You can call their views stupid, or joke about how ignorant they are. None of these tricks will help you understand them, their positions or the issues that divide you, but they can help you win – in one way.

这些争论观也削弱了理性。如果你把对话视为斗争或竞赛,只要不被抓住,你就可以通过作弊获胜。你会乐于用不当论证说服人们。你可以称他们的观点愚蠢,或拿他们的无知开玩笑。这些伎俩都无助于你理解他们、他们的立场或分化你们的议题,但它们可以帮助你获胜——在某种意义上。

段落 G

There is a better way to win arguments. Imagine that you favor increasing the minimum wage in our state, and I do not. If you yell, "Yes," and I yell, "No," neither of us learns anything. We neither understand nor respect each other, and we have no basis for compromise or cooperation. In contrast, suppose you give a reasonable argument: that full-time workers should not have to live in poverty. Then I counter with another reasonable argument: that a higher minimum wage will force businesses to employ fewer people for less time. Now we can understand each other's positions and recognize our shared values, since we both care about needy workers.