在非开放型题目中，反驳对方观点是一种常见的策略。这种反驳方式被称为“diss”，它要求我们不要简单地重复自己的主论点，而是聚焦于对方观点中的一个小点进行针对性反驳。这种方式不仅能展现批判性思维，还能使讨论更具深度和针对性。
首先，我们需要明确对方观点中的细节或小点。例如，对方可能在论证某个观点时提出了一个假设或数据支持，而我们可以通过质疑这个假设的合理性或数据的可靠性来进行反驳。这种反驳方式不是全面否定对方的观点，而是通过指出其论证过程中的薄弱环节来削弱其说服力。例如，如果对方认为“在线教育能够完全取代传统教育”，我们可以通过指出其忽略了传统教育中人际互动的重要性这一小点来进行反驳，从而揭示其论证的片面性。
其次，使用强因果关系词可以在反驳的结尾部分起到强化作用。强因果关系词如“因此”“所以”“由此可见”等，能够清晰地展示我们的逻辑链条，使反驳更具说服力。例如，在反驳对方关于“在线教育取代传统教育”的观点时，我们可以在结尾处使用“因此”来总结：“因此，由于传统教育在人际互动方面的独特优势，我们不能简单地认为在线教育能够完全取代传统教育。”这样的结尾不仅清晰地表达了我们的立场，还通过因果关系词强化了反驳的逻辑性。
避免在开头使用强因果关系词可以避免语言上的重复和拗口。如果在开头就使用“因此”“所以”等词汇，可能会使句子显得冗长且缺乏流畅性。相反，将这些词汇放在结尾部分，可以起到画龙点睛的作用，使整个反驳过程更加自然流畅。
Level
Good (4.0 - 5.0)
- You made a well-supported, relevant contribution to the discussion, and your ideas are easy to understand. Weaknesses, if there are any, might have to do with:
- use of English that is occasionally ungrammatical, unclear, or unidiomatic, and/or
- the elaboration of your viewpoint needing a little more detail or explanation.
Fair (2.5 - 3.5)
- You made a mostly relevant contribution to the discussion and your ideas are mostly understandable, but your response displays weaknesses such as:
- the support for your viewpoint is sometimes unclear, irrelevant, or missing an important example or detail,
- you made some noticeable grammatical mistakes, used incorrect words, or did not display sufficient variety in grammar structures and vocabulary.
三步走：
1.提到观点一致的学生，
2.一层层展开自己的观点中提到的特质。
3.diss对方的（diss占四成左右）反驳点出那个同学的名字。
I support Andrew's opinion that parents should not encourage teenagers to take part-time jobs. Academic responsibilities are already demanding, and working part-time after school can make students stressed out without providing benefits for career development. As teenagers are mostly incapable of doing skill-demanding jobs, they would probably do jobs like washing dishes or selling lemonade. These jobs require a lot of labor and might make the young shortsighted, as they are paid on a daily basis. And Claire's argument doesn't hold up (is untenable/tenuous), as some adult employees may be irresponsible themselves or have a lot of bad habits , which could negatively influence the teens, Let alone teaching the teenager about responsibility and time managements.
"untenable" 更强调“完全站不住脚、不可维持”，适合直接反驳逻辑有明显漏洞的论点；
"tenuous" 更侧重描述论点“非常薄弱、不充分”，带有不那么激烈的否定语气。
“Hold up”并不是不好，而是它的语气比较口语化和随意。在学术写作中，使用更正式的词汇（如“untenable”或“tenuous”）通常更合适，能体现更高的语言精准度和学术风格。
以下是它们的比较：
1. "Hold up" 的特点
- 这是一个常见的短语动词，通常用于口语或非正式写作中。
- 意思是“站得住脚”或“经得起检验”，用来评价某个论点或逻辑的强弱。
- 语气较轻，适合对论点进行一般性评价。
例如：
- "Her argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny."（她的论点在仔细推敲下站不住脚。）
My opinion aligns with Andrew's that a start-up company may be a better choice, as it offers much more opportunities for freely practicing and creating your own ways of doing jobs. In small companies, the whole company size is usually fewer than 15 members. With fewer colleagues(改成：meaning that/ so；避免显得流水账) , young graduates can quickly build relationships with many elites from different departments. Additionally, decisions can often be made in a much shorter time（稍微有点跟“人少”链接不上）, allowing for a more efficient work environment. On the other hand, if young graduates take their first job in an established company, as Kelly proposed, their passion and creativity may be destroyed by the endless and complex working rules before they can fully adapt and perform well.
易错点：建议“展开”，不要并列，要不然说不清楚就会显得单薄。 就像这里，要进一步体现decisions can often be made in a much shorter time跟一开始的人少展开对应上。
老师：你想要范文的话，自己写了一篇然后找老师要~
扫一扫
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
