以文章主体部分的一个段落为例，学习一种论证方式：

　　驳斥反方也是为自己的立场加码的论证内容和方式(尤其适用于自己的立场的理由不够多的情况)→ Some environmental activists may adopt a measure that is too prudent, showing zero tolerance for any farming practice that would have even a little impact on the environment. Their over-protection may be a ban on any crop-growing or breeding that may alter the environment or interfere with the environment’s natural state. In this case, none of existing agricultural areas would be environmentally legitimate, and the implication of the excessive protection threatens the survival of humans, since there would be significantly reduced agricultural yields and massive starving populations as a consequence. At this point, would anyone insist on such environmental actions, at the cost of human lives? ←措辞技巧，反问句。比陈述句的语气重，“耍流氓式”的论证，即通过反问的强烈语气辅助论证。

　　再以一道2019年12月的真题为例：

　　同样以文章主体部分的一个段落为例，巩固上面学习的那种论证方式：

　　驳斥反方也是为自己的立场加码的论证内容和方式(尤其适用于自己的立场的理由不够多的情况)→ Since the fee is not yet charged, which is the commonplace in many cities, car owners, without any hesitation, opt to use their vehicles, and, as a result, there are congested roads. In addition to the congestion, on those roads, emissions from cars accumulate and pollute the city, and meanwhile, car collisions are highly likely, rendering the roads unsafe. Since all of these consequences may be attributed to the free access, the fee is necessary. ←先说反面的情况，然后一句话“扭转”过来，就完成了论证→ If the use of the city streets incurs a fee, none of congestions, pollution and accidents will be as likely to happen as they are now. For example, the City of Shanghai charged such a fee, the current irritating and hazardous traffic conditions would not deteriorate but improve.