驳论文的结构：
驳论文大致分为两个部分，即“驳”与“立”，在驳斥对方错误观点的基础上，建立起自己正确的观点。“驳” 是“立”的前提,批驳对方的要点在于抓住“突破口”。寻找对方论点，论据或论证过程中的薄弱环节，揭示谬误，从而立论。“立”是“驳”水到渠成的结果，也是“驳”的必然要求，它也可以在驳论的过程中渐渐形成，但是立论的观点-定要鲜明。驳论文批驳对方观点的方式有三种: -是直接批驳对方的论点;二是通过批驳对方的论据来驳倒对方的论点;三是通过批驳对方的论证来驳倒对方的论点。所有批驳的方式的最终目的都是驳倒对方的论点。从正确的论点出发或者以正确的论点为指导揭露、驳斥错误的见解和主张的文章称为驳论性议论文。驳论性议论文中，批驳是文章的主体。
批驳对方的论点-般有三种方法:(1）驳论点。论点、论据、论证这三者中，论点的错误是要害,论据和论证是为错误的论点服务的。反驳错误的论点，是写驳论文的主要的一种反驳方法。(2) 驳论据。错误的论点总是依靠站不住脚的或荒谬的理论、虚假的事例作为论据来支撑的。只要把这些论据推翻驳倒，论点就失掉了它的支撑，也就会不攻自破了。(3) 驳论证。错误的论点不仅依靠荒谬不实的论据来支撑，而且常常利用论点与论据之间的错误论证、推理来作诡辩。驳论证就是要揭露错误论点和论据之间的不合理联系，指出两者之间的逻辑关系的混乱和荒谬。
驳论文的基本结构是先破后立的议论文的结构。
驳论文，主要是就一定的事件或问题发表议论，反驳片面的、错误的甚至反动的见解或主张，从而表明自己正确的见解和主张。驳论文一般都是破中有立，边破边立，即在反驳对方错误论点的同时，针锋相对地提出自己的正确观点。因而我们说它的基本结构是“先破后立”。
驳论的整体思路是“巧设反方，逐层反驳”。“巧设反方”就是在正面论述的基础之上，提出有可能出现的反方观点，尽力预设，尽力设全，以体现你思维的周密性；“逐层反驳”就是针对预设的反方观点，从其表面的错误到深层的思想根源，用理论论据和事实论据逐步反驳，让它站不住脚，从而使自己的观点有理有力。
驳论文写作模式主要为三步骤：
第一步“树靶子”:摆敌方观点(要列举错误事实)
第二步 作分析:分析危害
第三步揭本质:剖析错误本质
简而言之，英语议论文共有三大特点：
1、 观点鲜明的开头；
2、 紧扣主题的结尾；
3、 有主题句并且衔接自然的中间段落。
这三点当中，第1、2点早已为绝大多数中国学生所熟知，因为开头点题和结尾扣题同样也是汉语文章的要求。但在长时间的学习过程中，这样的要求被很多学生以为是“老土”而得不到足够的重视。如果将这种思想带到英语议论文写作当中，直接的后果就是中心分散、观点不明确，加上中国学生普遍英文表达能力不强，这些因素就为整篇文章的失败埋下了隐患。
另外，英语文章和汉语不同的是段落的主题句一定要放在段首，而不能按照中文的写作习惯放在段落的中间或者最后，在英文应试写作中更加如此。正因为没有“主题句”的思想，所以中国学生在写英语文章时经常“想到什么，就写什么”，这在英语议论文中是不能接受的。例如，例文1中每一段的首句都简要地概括出了该段的主要内容，换句话说，每段的内容都是根据首句来展开的，其顺序不能颠倒。
（关于段落的衔接，在后面的内容中将详细介绍。）
(二) 中心统一
在中心统一这个问题上，英语议论文和汉语议论文的概念也有所不同。中国人在写议论文时常常遵循“中庸”的原则，其具体的表现就是认为世界上没有任何事情是绝对的。当他们在文章中表扬一件事物或一种现象的时候，总要指出其不足；同样，在批评一件事物或一种现象的同时，也总不忘记指出其也有合理之处。这种做法从道理上来讲并没有什么不妥，但却不符合英语议论文的写作习惯，因为英语作家在写议论文时关注的是自己的辩论技巧和其结果对公众的影响力。换句话说，如果作者告诉大家两面都有道理也就等于说两面都没有道理，因为读者在读了文章之后仍旧不知道作者的看法是什么，以及自己在这种情况下到底该怎么做。
所以，既然四级考试考的是英语文章，大家就应该遵循英文议论文的写作思路和习惯：表示支持则旗帜鲜明地支持；表示反对就彻彻底底地反对，而不能采取“墙头草两边倒”的做法。以上面的例文1为例，如果作者的观点是“幸运数字是既有道理又无道理的”，这种观点就无法让人接受，因为在英语
In any academic area or professional field, it is just as important to recognize the limits of our knowledge and understanding as it is to acquire new facts and information.“
Personally, I hold that knowledge knows no bounds, therefore, on realizing this awkwardness, the only thing man should do is to absorb as much new knowledge as he can for the sake of not lagging behind the pacing steps of our world.
但是作者完全是从另外一个角度去论证，且看下文。
Does recognizing the limits of our knowledge and understanding serve us equally well as acquiring new facts and information, as the speaker asserts?注意这一句经典的反问式开头了，这是最引人注目的。While our everyday experience might lend credence to this assertion, further reflection reveals its fundamental inconsistency with our Western view of how we acquire knowledge. Nevertheless,虽然是原则上不尽同意但还是提出妥协的办法，从而显出作者是critical thinking的，这一点很重要，也是拿分的重头戏也。a careful and thoughtful definition of knowledge can serve to reconcile the two.
让我们记一记一些好词好句：lend credence to this assertion (有足够的证据)证明这一观点的正确性;further reflection reveals its fundamental inconsistency with…;Nevertheless, a careful and thoughtful definition of knowledge can serve to reconcile the two.
On the one hand, the speaker"s assertion accords with the everyday experience of working professionals. For example, the sort of "book”knowledge that medical, law, and business students acquire, no matter how extensive, is of little use unless these students also learn to accept the uncertainties and risks inherent in professional practice and in the business world.
Any successful doctor, lawyer, or entrepreneur would undoubtedly agree that new precedents and challenges in their fields compel them to acknowledge the limitations of their knowledge, and that learning to accommodate these limitations is just as important in their professional success as knowledge itself.
在驳论的第一段，作者就举例子说明知识的有限性并不一定意味着各行各业的人就必须汲取其他方面的知识，恰恰相反，对于医生、律师或企业家来说意识到了自我知识的有限，并且寻求方法去适应调和这一有限性反而是必要的。
Moreover, the additional knowledge we gain by collecting more information often diminishes-sometimes to the point where marginal gains turn to marginal losses. Consider, for instance, the collection of financial- investment information. No amount of knowledge can eliminate the uncertainty and risk inherent in financial investing. Also, information overload can result in confusion, which in turn can diminish one"s ability to assimilate information and apply it usefully. Thus, by recognizing the limits of their knowledge, and by accounting for those limits when making decisions, investment advisors can more effectively serve their clients.
作者进一步通过金融投资业信息的赘余的危害性来驳斥原文的观点。
On the other hand, the speaker"s assertion seems self-contradictory, for how can we know the limits of our knowledge until we"ve thoroughly tested those limits through exhaustive empirical observation--that is, by acquiring facts and information. For example, it would be tempting to concede that we can never understand the basic forces that govern all matter in the universe. Yet due to increasingly precise and extensive fact- finding efforts of scientists, we might now be within striking distance of understanding the key laws by which all physical matter behaves. Put another way, the speaker"s assertion flies in the face of悍然不顾，公然违抗the scientific method, whose fundamental tenet is that we humans can truly know only that which we observe. Thus Francis Bacon, who first formulated the method, might assert that the speaker is fundamentally incorrect.
说实话，我觉得这一段里，作者玩了一个诡辩的小伎俩：先是指出原文观点的自相矛盾性，然后引出自己的看法——认识论远重要于获取新的事实和信息，也就是要“先认识知识和理解力的局限然后才是摄取新知。”
How can we reconcile our experience in everyday endeavors with the basic assumption underlying the scientific method? Perhaps the answer lies in a distinction between two types of knowledge--one which amounts to a mere collection of observations (i.e., facts and information), the other which is deeper and includes a realization of principles and truths underlying those observations. At this deeper level "knowledge" equals "under- standing": how we interpret, make sense of, and find meaning in the information we collect by way of observation.
作者就上一段提出的问题推出自己的解决方法，即认识到“知识”分成两种：纯观察行为所得的信息;萃取之后的经过自己消化后的“理解”。但我觉得这里还有待发挥，估计是时间不够了，仓促间收笔吧。没有很好的说明白。
In the final analysis, evaluating the speaker"s assertion requires that we define "knowledge,"which in turn requires that we address complex epistemological issues best left to philosophers and theologians. Yet perhaps this is the speaker"s point: that we can never truly know either ourselves or the world, and that by recognizing this limitation we set ourselves free to accomplish what no amount of mere information could ever permit.
最后一句玩了复杂句的构句技巧，想搏ets一笑。但我觉得还是总结的不够好，没有说到点子上。其实，我们平实的写作大可不必如此玩弄文字，因为如果当别人都不知道你在说什么的话，一味专心于难句，无异于“喧宾夺主”了。个人认为，作者写得有点不知所云了。
1、引言：引出话题
2、正文：阐明观点
a.阐述理由
b.分析利弊
c.提出举措
d.列举实例
3、结论/倡议：重申观点/发出倡议
