2016年专8听力真题、答案及讲座原文.doc

2016 TEM-8 LISTENING COMPREHENSIONSECTION A MINI-LECTUREModels for ArgumentsThree models for argumentsl the first model for arguing is called (1) _; arguments are treated as war there is much winning and losing it is a (2) _ model for arguingl the second model for arguing is arguments as proofs: (3) warranted _ valid inferences and conclusions no (4) _ in the adversarial sensel the third model for arguing is (5) _: the audience is (6) _ in the arguments arguments must (7) _ the audienceTraits of the argument as warl very dominant: it can shape (8) _l strong arguments are neededl negative effects include: (9) _ are emphasized winning is the only purpose this type of arguments prevent (10) _ the worst thing is (11) _l implication from arguments as war: (12) _ e.g., one providing reasons and the other raising (13) _ the other one is finally persuadedSuggestions on new ways to (14) _ of argumentsl think of new kinds of argumentsl change roles in argumentsl (15) _SECTION B INTERVIEWNow, listen to the Part One of the interview. Questions 1 to 5 are based on Part One of the interview.1. What is the topic of the interview?A. Maggies university life.B. Her moms life at Harvard.C. Maggies view on studying with Mom.D. Maggies opinion on her moms major.2. Which of the following indicates that they have the same study schedule?A. They take exams in the same weeks.B. They have similar lecture notes.C. They apply for the same internship.D. They follow the same fashion.3. What do the mother and the daughter have in common as students?A. Having roommates.B. Practicing court trails.C. Studying together.D. Taking notes by hand.4. What is the biggest advantage of studying with Mom?A. Protection.B. Imagination.C. Excitement.D. Encouragement.5. What is the biggest disadvantage of studying with Mom?A. Thinking of ways to comfort Mom.B. Occasional interference from Mom.C. Ultimately calls when Maggie is busy.D. Frequent check on Maggies grades.Now, listen to the Part Two of the interview. Questions 6 to 10 are based on Part Two of the interview.6. Why is parent and kid studying together a common case?A. Because parents need to be ready for new jobs.B. Because parents love to return to college.C. Because kids require their parents to do so.D. Because kids find it hard to adapt to college life.7. What would Maggies mom like to be after college?A. Real estate agent.B. Financier.C. Lawyer.D. Teacher.8. How does Maggies mom feel about sitting in class after 30 years?A. Delighted.B. Excited.C. Bored.D. Frustrated.9. What is most challenging for Maggies mom?A. How to make a cake.B. How to make omelets.C. To accept what is taught.D. To plan a future career.10. How does Maggie describe the process of thinking out ones career path?A. Unsuccessful.B. Gradual.C. Frustrating.D. Passionate.Keys:101. the dialectical model2. common and fixed3. premises4. opposition / arguing5. arguments as performances / the rhetorical model6. participatory / participating / the participant / taking part7. be tailored to / cater for8. how we argue / our actual conduct9. tactics / strategies10. negotiation and collaboration11. theres no solution / progress12. learning with losing13. questions / counter-considerations / counter-arguments / objections / arguments in opposition14. achieve positive effects15. support oneself / yourselfC A D D BA C D C BScript: Good morning, everyone. My name is David and I am good at arguing. So welcome to our introductory lecture on argumentation. Why do we want to argue? Why do we try to convince other people to believe things that they dont want to believe? And is that even a nice thing to do? Is that a nice way to treat other human being, try and make them think something they dont want to think? Well, my answer is going to make reference to three models for arguments. (1) The first model lets call this the dialectical model is that we think of arguments as war. And you know what thats like. There is a lot of screaming and shouting and winning and losing. (2) And thats not really a very helpful model arguing, but its a pretty common and fixed one. I guess you must have seen that type of arguing many times in the street, on the bus or in the subway.Lets move on to the second model. The second model for arguing regards arguments as proofs. Think of a mathematicians argument. Heres my argument. Does it work? Is it any good? (3) Are the premises（前提） warranted? Are the inferences（推论）) valid? Does the conclusion follow the premises? (4) No opposition, no adversariality（对抗） not necessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense.(5) And theres a third model to keep in mind that I think is going to be very helpful, and that is arguments as performances, arguments as being in front of an audience. We can think of a politician trying to present a position, trying to convince the audience of something.But theres another twist（转折） on this model that I really think is important; namely, that when we argue before an audience, (6) sometimes the audience has a more participatory role in the argument; that is, you present you arguments in front of an audience who are like juries（陪审团） that make a judgment and decide the case. (5) Lets call this model the rhetorical model, (7) where you have to tailor（迎合） your argument to the audience at hand.Of those three, the argument as war is the dominant one. It dominates how we talk about arguments, it dominates how we think about arguments, and because of that, (8) it shapes how we argue, our actual right on target. We want to have our defenses up and our strategies all in order. We want killer arguments. Thats the kind of argument we want. It is the dominant way of thinking about arguments. When Im talking about arguments, thats probably what you thought of, the adversarial model.But the war metaphor, the war paradigm（范例） or model for thinking about arguments, has, I think, negative effects on how we argue. (9) First, it elevates tactics over substance. You can take a class in logic argumentation. You learn all about the strategies that people use to try and win arguments and that makes arguing adversarial; its polarizing（分化的）. And the only foreseeable outcomes are triumph glorious triumph or disgraceful（可耻的） defeat. I think those are very destructive effects, and worst of all, (10) it seems to prevent things like negotiation and collaboration（合作）. Um, I think the argument-as-war metaphor inhibits（阻止） those other kinds of resolutions to argumentation.(11) And finally this is really the worst thing arguments dont seem to get us anywhere; theyre dead ends（死胡同）. We dont anywhere. Oh, and one more thing. (12) That is, if argument is war, then theres also an implicit（绝对的） aspect of meaning learning with losing.And let me explain what I mean. Suppose you and I have an argument. You believe a proposition（命题） and I dont. And I say, “Well, why do you believe that?” And you give me your reasons. And I object and say, “Well, what about？” 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, Ive objected, Ive questioned, (13) Ive raised all sorts of questions from an opposite perspective and in every case youve responded to my satisfaction. And so at the end of the day, I say, “You know what? I guess youre right.” Maybe finally I lost my argument. But isnt it also a process of learning? So you see arguments may also have positive effects.(14) So, how can we find new ways to achieve those positive effects? We need to think of new kinds of arguments. Here I have some suggestion. If we want to think of new kinds of argument, what we need to do is think of new kinds of arguers people who argue.So try this: Think of all the roles that people play in arguments. (1) (5) Theres the proponent and the opponent in an adversarial, dialectical argument（对话式论证）. Theres the audience in rhetorical arguments. Theres the reasoner in arguments as proofs. All these different roles. Now, can you imagine an argument in which you are the arguer, but youre also in the audience, watching yourself argue? Can you imagine yourself watching yourself argue? (15) That means you need to be supported by yourself. Even when you lose the argumen