"People who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are the most critical of it."

本题关键在于如何理解并处理命题中的条件关系，即：只要是执著于某一思想或政策的人，他（她）则对其抱有最苛刻的批判态度，本命题建立的基础为：只要A，即B，写作的切入点在于判断条件关系的内在逻辑是否成立。

题型分类：条件关系

思路分类：质疑命题中的概念、假设、对立

 The speaker claims that people who are the most fmnly committed to an idea or policy are

the same people who are most critical of that idea or policy. While I find this claim paradoxical

on its face, the paradox is explainable, and the explanation is well supported empirically.

Nevertheless, the claim is an unfair generalization in that it fails to account for other empirical

evidence serving to discredit it.

作者开篇一针见血的提出论者的观点存在矛盾，并有力的指出这种矛盾有其解释的理由并可从经验主义的角度得到确凿的支持证据，从而为下文的论证打下了牢固的基础。

A threshold problem with the speaker's claim is that its internal logic is questionable. At first

impression it would seem that firm commitment to an idea or policy necessarily requires the

utmost confidence in it, and yet one cannot have a great deal of confidence in an idea or policy

if one recognizes its flaws, drawbacks, or other problems. Thus commitment and criticism

would seem to be mutually exclusive. But are they? One possible explanation for the paradox is that individuals most fmnly committed to an idea or policy are often the same people who are most knowledgeable on the subject, and therefore are in the best position to understand and appreciate the problems with the idea or policy.

对论者观点的内在逻辑提出置疑，：commitment（执著）与criticism（批判）两者之间的排斥关系。并对论者观点的内在逻辑的合理性给出一个可能性的解释，即，往往执著于某一思想或政策的人对这一思想或政策最为了解，因此他们能够最好的理解和评价这种思想或政策所存在的各种问题。

   Lending credence to this explanation for the paradoxical nature of the speaker's claim are

the many historical cases of uneasy marriages between commitment to and criticism of the

same idea or policy. For example, Edward Teller, the so-called "father of the atom bomb," was

firmly committed toAmerica's policy of gaining military superiority over the Japanese and the

Germans; yet at the same time he attempted fervently to dissuade theU.S.military from

employing his technology for destruction, while becoming the most visible advocate for various

peaceful and productive applications of atomic energy. Another example is George

Washington, who was quoted as saying that all the world's denizens "should abhor war

wherever they may find it." Yet this was the same military general who played a key role in the

Revolutionary War betweenBritainand the States. A third example was Einstein, who while

committed to the mathematical soundness of his theories about relativity could not reconcile

them with the equally compelling quantum theory which emerged later in Einstein's life. In fact,

Einstein spent the last twenty years of his life criticizing his own theories and struggling to

determine how to reconcile them with newer theories.

为了使上段作者给出的解释具有可信，作者引证三个历史人物案例，对commitment与criticism之间非对立排斥的关系从正面对论者的论断予以某种程度的支持。论证方法：支持型论证

  In the face of historical examples supporting the speaker's claim are innumerable influential individuals who were zealously committed to certain ideas and policies but who were not critical of them, at least not outwardly. Could anyone honestly claim, for instance, that Elizabeth Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, who in the late 19th Century paved the way for the women's rights movement by way of their fervent advocacy, were at the same time highly

critical or suspicious of the notion that women deserve equal rights under the law? Also, would it not be absurd to claim that Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, history's two leading advocates of civil disobedience as a means to social reform, had serious doubts about the ideals to which they were so demonstrably committed? Finally, consider the two ideologues and revolutionaries Lenin and Mussolini. Is it even plausible that their demonstrated commitment to their own Communist and Fascist policies, respectively, belied some deep

personal suspicion about the merits of these policies? To my knowledge no private writing of

any of these historical figures lends any support to the claim that these leaders were

particularly critical of their own ideas or policies.

 作者在本段从与论者论断相反的立场和观点出发，并使用三个反诘语句，三个历史案例对论者的观点进行驳斥，论证方法：驳斥型论证

   To sum up, while at first glance a deep commitment to and incisive criticism of the same idea or policy would seem mutually exclusive, it appears they are not. Thus the speaker's claim has some merit. Nevertheless, for every historical case supporting the speaker's claim are many others serving to refute it. In the final analysis, then, the correctness of the speaker's assertionmust be determined on a case-by-case basis.

作者对论者的论断所做的最终分析得出，判定论者观点的正确性与否必须依不同情况而定。

6．