Three sub-arguments:

The first layer (the fourth paragraph): put forward the first argument-"the ideal ladder belongs to the hardworking people", and prove it with concrete examples of Marx and Nobel.

The second layer (paragraphs 5 and 6): Put forward the second sub-argument-"The ideal ladder belongs to those who cherish time", and use the concrete examples of Edison, Lu Xun and Balzac and Zhu Ziqing's famous words as arguments.

The third layer (the seventh natural paragraph): put forward the third argument-"the ideal ladder belongs to those who face difficulties", and demonstrate it with specific examples of Galileo, Bruno, Gorky, Hua, Kepler, Dalton and Einstein.

Demonstration methods and examples:

What methods are used to demonstrate the three sub-arguments in the "ideal ladder"?

In the third paragraph of this article, the first sentence "The ideal ladder belongs to hardworking people" is the central sentence at the beginning of this paragraph, which is called the "beginning part" in structure and is the first argument of the full text. "Realizing the lofty ideal of liberating all mankind ... and inspiring them to work hard" is the "expanding part" of this paragraph, which is an argument mentioned at the beginning. The argument method used is the method of seeking common ground in scientific induction. The method of seeking common ground is mainly based on the causal relationship between things, and the specific step is "from different to the same", that is, firstly, the differences in various aspects of several cases are expounded separately, and then they are summarized and analyzed to find a common point in essence, which is the reason for the establishment of the argument. In this passage, Marx and Nobel respectively expounded their different careers, efforts and achievements, and then they all got together to clarify their similarities and differences: they not only had lofty ideals, but also worked hard to realize their own ideals; It can be concluded that people who work hard can realize their ideals. The last two sentences are the "ending part" of this paragraph, which reaffirms and deepens the arguments put forward at the beginning in combination with the current youth reality.

The fourth and fifth paragraphs prove the second argument that "the ideal ladder belongs to those who cherish time" In paragraph 4, the argument is still based on "seeking common ground", while in paragraph 5, the argument is based on "reduction to absurdity". And "reduction to absurdity" is to put forward a judgment that contradicts the argument and clarify that this judgment is false. Then, according to law of excluded middle (two contradictory judgments cannot be false, there must be a truth), who knows the truth of this argument. This passage first puts forward the contradictory judgment that "some people don't cherish time", further analyzes the reasons why they don't have ideals and don't understand the meaning of life, and then draws the conclusion that such people can't realize their ideals; On the contrary, if we seize every minute and work hard, we can achieve lofty goals.

The first sentence of the sixth paragraph, "the ideal ladder belongs to those who face difficulties", is the third argument of the full text. As the opening part of the argument, "the necessity of struggle ... indomitable spirit of struggle" adopts "selective exclusion method" The so-called "selective exclusion method" means that after the argument at the beginning of a paragraph is established, an incompatible selective judgment including the argument as a selective branch is first formed in the expanded part of the paragraph, and then other selective branches are proved to be false according to the "negative affirmation" in the incompatible selective reasoning, so as to judge the authenticity of the argument. This passage is demonstrated like this. First, it constitutes an incompatible choice of words including arguments ("the ideal ladder belongs to those who face difficulties"): on the journey of the four modernizations, some people face difficulties; Some people use "poor objective conditions" as an excuse to get away with it after being killed; Some people avoid difficulties on the grounds of "ordinary posts", so in the expansion part, according to the "negative affirmative formula" in incompatible alternative reasoning, the falsity of two alternative branches except arguments is demonstrated. In this way, there are sufficient reasons to reiterate and deepen the argument at the end: with open arms in the struggle, people who face difficulties will certainly achieve gratifying results.

I hope I can help you!