Reading and writing : Use deductive and concessive reasoning to write a short article

🔊 المعلّمة تقرأ لك

NASA fired an explosive barrel into the path of a comet — on purpose. Some people were shocked: « it is like greeting a stranger by shooting first and asking questions later ». The author of the article does not simply say they are wrong: he answers with an analogy, a concession and a chain of deductions. How do you defend an idea that others reject — and how do you write an article that does it?

🎓في نهاية هذا الدرس ستكون قادرا على:

توقّع مضمون نصّ انطلاقا من فقرته الأولى، وتحديد نوعه وغرض كاتبه
استنتاج معاني الكلمات من السياق، واستنتاج ما لا يقوله النصّ صراحة ⁦(inferences)⁩
التمييز بين أنواع الاستدلال في النصّ الحجاجيّ: الاستنتاجيّ والتسليميّ والاستدلال بالتشبيه ⁦(deductive · concessive · analogy)⁩
كتابة مقال قصير يردّ على رأي بالاستنتاج والتسليم ⁦(a short article)⁩

🔑يفترض هذا الدرس أنّك تتقن:

أدوات التسليم ⁦(it is true that … but · although · however)⁩
أدوات النتيجة ⁦(so · thus · as a result · therefore)⁩
الشرط من النوع الثاني ⁦(you would be angry if …)⁩

1. Before reading — predict

قبل القراءة : اقرأ الفقرة الأولى بسرعة، وتوقّع مصدرها وموقعها من النصّ وما سيأتي بعدها.

DEEP IMPACT — the first paragraph

Task 1 — ① What kind of source is this paragraph taken from: a science-fiction book, a scientific report, a newspaper article or a letter of complaint? Why? ② Where does it fit in the text? ③ What comes next?

ما مصدر الفقرة؟ وأين موقعها من النصّ؟ وماذا سيأتي بعدها؟

① A newspaper article. It reports a recent real event — « On Sunday night » — with precise figures, for the general public, and it asks the reader a question: « Why? »
② At the beginning. It presents the event and asks the question that the article will answer.
③ The answer to « Why? »: the reasons for the mission — and, probably, an answer to the people who criticize it.

2. Read

اقرأ المقال مرّة أولى بسرعة لتتحقّق من توقّعاتك، ثمّ مرّة ثانية ببطء.

Read the article once quickly, to check the guesses you made about it. Then read it a second time, slowly, paragraph by paragraph: each one does a different job in the argument.

Deep Impact

On Sunday night, NASA fired a 3-foot wide, 820-pound explosive barrel directly into the path of a 9-mile long, potato-shaped comet called Tempel 1. The two successfully collided at 23,000 mph while a spaceship photographed the collision and sent the pictures home to us. Why? So we can learn about the impact that a collision with comets might have on our planet. We will also have the chance to look at the crater caused by the collision, and study the ice and vapor that are released. In this way, we will also learn about the life secrets that lie deep within the hole of the comet. (§1) When I describe the mission to people, I receive mixed reactions. Some feel that it is not really 'fine' to throw rockets at comets just to see what happens. They say that it is like greeting a stranger by shooting first and asking questions later. Aren't we going too far to satisfy our curiosity here? (§2) Well, no. This explosion is not going to hurt anyone or anything. Here's an analogy. You would be justifiably angry if, in order to learn about shorelines, some scientist decided to dig up your favourite beach. But you wouldn't object if the scientist took a few grains of sand to study. There are approximately one trillion comets larger than 1 mile in diameter, in this solar system alone, and many more in the wider universe. So even if we destroyed the comet Tempel 1 entirely we would not be doing any harm to the cometary system. (§3) In addition, this mission will not demolish the comet, alter its course, or affect the cosmos in any way. Comets collide with other celestial objects all the time. The only thing extraordinary about this particular impact is that we provoked it. 'Deep Impact' will simply make one more small hole in an object that, like all planets large and small, has been repeatedly hit by colliding debris since our solar system's origin, 4.6 billion years ago. (§4) It is the beginnings of the universe that this experiment can illuminate. Beneath the dirty ice crust of a comet like Tempel 1 is material that has been frozen since the birth of our solar system. Inside this timeless frozen rock are organic molecules like those that made life possible on Earth. The study of that ice crust may help us explain the story of our origin. (§5) As H.G. Wells once wrote, « There is no way back into the past. The choice is the universe — or nothing. » It has been said that the dinosaurs disappeared because they couldn't go to another planet. Sooner or later a killer comet will again cross Earth's path, threatening all life. Fortunately, because we have knowledge about comets and space science, we will be able to survive. (§6) David Grinspoon — from the International Herald Tribune, Tuesday, July 5, 2005, p. 8

3. Understanding the article

الفهم : أجب عن الأسئلة بالمعلومة الدقيقة من المقال، مع رقم الفقرة.

Task 2 — A. Why did NASA fire an explosive barrel in the path of Tempel 1? Give one reason only. · B. Did people approve of throwing rockets at comets? · C. The author believes that the origin of life on Earth can be explained through a better knowledge of space. What paragraph indicates that? · D. Why is space science vital for humanity, according to the author? Explain by analogy with the fate of the dinosaurs.

أجب عن الأسئلة الأربعة بالمعلومة الدقيقة من المقال.

A. « So we can learn about the impact that a collision with comets might have on our planet » (§1) — or: to study the crater, the ice and vapour that are released.
B. Not all of them: « I receive mixed reactions. Some feel that it is not really 'fine' to throw rockets at comets just to see what happens » (§2).
C. Paragraph 5: « Inside this timeless frozen rock are organic molecules like those that made life possible on Earth. The study of that ice crust may help us explain the story of our origin. »
D. The dinosaurs disappeared because they couldn't go to another planet; a killer comet will one day cross Earth's path again — but because we have knowledge about comets and space science, « we will be able to survive » (§6).

4. Words from the context

معنى الكلمة من السياق : صنفها، ومرادفها أو ضدّها في النصّ، وشرح الكاتب لها، وسوابقها ولواحقها، وأدوات الربط.

It is not necessary to stop and check every difficult word in the dictionary. Try to infer its meaning from the context, asking yourself these questions: Which class does the word belong to — verb, noun, adjective or adverb? Does the author use a synonym or an antonym of it in the text? Does he paraphrase or explain it? Are there prefixes or suffixes that suggest its meaning? Are there link words that show a relationship of meaning?

Task 3 — Infer the meaning of these words from the text: crater (§1) · mixed reactions (§2) · hurt (§3) · demolish (§4 — see the end of §3) · ice crust (§5) · the opposite of disappeared (§6).

استنتج معنى الكلمات من سياقها في المقال.

Word	Meaning	The clue in the text
crater	a hole made by the impact	« caused by the collision » · « one more small hole » (§4)
mixed reactions	some people approve, others do not	« Some feel that it is not really fine »
hurt	harm, injure	« we would not be doing any harm » (§3)
demolish	destroy	« even if we destroyed the comet Tempel 1 entirely » (end of §3)
ice crust	the frozen outer layer of the comet	« dirty ice crust » · « frozen » (§5)
disappeared — its opposite	survive	« we will be able to survive » (§6)

5. Reading between the lines

الاستنتاج : ماذا تفهم من كلّ جملة، ولو لم يقله الكاتب صراحة؟

Task 4 — What inferences can you make from each of these statements? A. « Throwing rockets at comets is like greeting a stranger by shooting first and asking questions later. » (§2) · B. « You would be justifiably angry if … some scientist decided to dig up your favourite beach, but you wouldn't object if the scientist took a few grains of sand to study. » (§3) · C. « Fortunately, because we have knowledge about comets and space science, we will be able to survive. » (§6)

استنتاجات ممكنة من الجمل الثلاث.

A. The critics find the mission aggressive and irresponsible: we attack something before we know what it is.
B. The mission takes a tiny sample from a huge cometary system — a few grains of sand from a beach: it does no real harm.
C. Space science may one day allow us to protect the Earth from a killer comet — which the dinosaurs could not do.

6. How does the author argue?

النصّ الحجاجيّ له وظيفتان، وثلاثة أنواع من الاستدلال : الاستنتاجيّ، والتسليميّ، والاستدلال بالتشبيه.

Argumentative texts defend ideas or points of view, explicitly or implicitly. They have two functions: a polemical function — dismissing someone else's point of view — and a persuasive function — changing someone else's point of view. They use three categories of reasoning: deductive reasoning (drawing conclusions each time you say something), concessive reasoning (making concessions to other people's arguments, the better to criticize them) and reasoning by analogy (making your arguments more concrete by comparing situations).

Three kinds of reasoning in « Deep Impact »

Reasoning	What it does	In the article
concessive	grants the critics' feeling, then answers it	« Aren't we going too far to satisfy our curiosity here? Well, no. » (§2-§3)
by analogy	compares with a concrete situation	the stranger (§2) · the beach and the grains of sand (§3) · the dinosaurs (§6)
deductive	draws a conclusion from facts	« So even if we destroyed the comet … we would not be doing any harm » (§3)

Task 5 — Discuss the article: A. its type of discourse · B. its function · C. its category of reasoning.

ما نمط المقال؟ وما وظيفته؟ وما نوع الاستدلال فيه؟

A. Type of discourse: argumentative — it defends a point of view, the usefulness of the mission — with a short narrative opening (§1 of the event) and explanations (§5).
B. Function: both. It is polemical, because it dismisses the critics' view (« Well, no. »), and persuasive, because it wants the reader to change his mind about the mission.
C. Reasoning: all three — a concession (§2-§3), analogies (the stranger, the beach, the dinosaurs), and a deduction (« So even if … »).

7. Write — a short article that refutes a statement

الكتابة : مقال قصير يردّ على رأي، بالاستدلال الاستنتاجيّ أو التسليميّ أو بهما معا.

Write a newspaper article of about twenty lines that refutes a statement, using deductive or concessive reasoning — or both. Useful language — to make claims: some people claim, assert, believe, state that … · to concede: admittedly, certainly, though, although, in spite of the fact that, despite the fact that, it is true that …, but … · to deduce: and so, thus, as a result, hence, then · to give your point of view: I would argue that …, I believe …

Your task — the statement and the outline

Statement: « Some people think that the budget devoted to space exploration is wasted money. » ① Introduction ② Arguments against space exploration: space exploration is a wild dream · huge amounts of money go up in smoke · this money is needed to relieve poverty in the Third World · medical research should be encouraged instead ③ Arguments in favour of space exploration: predicting earthquakes · satellite communication · weather forecasting · solving environmental problems · blood analysis ④ Conclusion Flesh out the outline with details of your own, write a first draft, correct it, exchange it with a partner, then rewrite it.

A model article

مقال نموذجيّ : التسليم ثمّ الردّ ثمّ الاستنتاج.

Space exploration: money well spent Some people think that the budget devoted to space exploration is wasted money. I would argue that it is one of the best investments humanity can make. It is true that huge amounts of money go up in smoke every time a rocket is launched, and admittedly this money could help to relieve poverty in the Third World or to encourage medical research. However, space exploration is not a wild dream. Satellites allow us to predict earthquakes and to forecast the weather, and so they help to save lives. They also make satellite communication possible, and thus link the whole world. As a result, the money spent in space comes back to us on Earth. Space research also helps us to solve environmental problems, and blood analysis, too, has benefited from it. Hence, far from being wasted, the budget of space exploration protects our planet and our lives. The dinosaurs could not leave their planet. We, at least, can study the sky that threatens us — and that is worth every dinar we spend on it.

Check the model: the statement to refute first; a concession (it is true that …, admittedly …); the refutation with however; deductions (and so, thus, as a result, hence); an analogy to close (the dinosaurs).

In the exam, the reading text is followed by questions on its type, its function and the writer's reasoning, on inferences and on the meaning of words in context; and the written expression often asks for an argumentative text. Have three things ready: ① the three reasonings — deductive (so, thus, hence), concessive (it is true that …, however), analogy (like, as if); ② a difficult word: its class, a synonym or an antonym in the text, a paraphrase; ③ to refute: state the view, concede one point, then deduce your conclusion. The frequent mistake: a concession with no refutation — the reader thinks you agree with the view you wanted to refute.

What I keep — An argumentative text defends a point of view: it can dismiss another view (polemical) and change the reader's mind (persuasive). « Deep Impact » uses the three reasonings: a concession (« Aren't we going too far …? Well, no. »), analogies (the stranger, the beach, the dinosaurs) and deductions (« So even if we destroyed the comet … »). To write my own article, I state the view I refute, concede a point, answer it, and deduce my conclusion.

الصفحة 1/4