1, inductive argument

Inductive argumentation, also known as "factual argumentation" and example argumentation, is a method to demonstrate general conclusions by enumerating specific examples. This is an argument method from material to viewpoint, from individual to general, and it is a form of reasoning that draws * * * conclusions from the analysis and research of many individual things.

There are two forms of enumerating facts when using inductive argument, namely, summarizing the whole facts and enumerating individual facts.

The persuasiveness of summarizing the whole facts lies in the universality embodied in the facts, and it is a comprehensive statistics or summary of the whole facts or the overall situation. The demonstration method of enumerating individual cases does not need comprehensive consideration, just enumerating several cases.

The application of inductive argument needs attention: first, enumerating examples needs certain typicality; Second, examples should conform to the principles of economics, especially when the number of words in academic papers is limited, try to describe them in concise words and try not to repeat the same kind.

2. Deductive argument

Deductive argumentation, also known as "theoretical argumentation", is a method to demonstrate individual cases according to general principles or conclusions, that is, a way of reasoning from universal to special.

Taking abstract and generalized arguments as the major premise and concrete facts as the minor premise, we can draw convincing conclusions, which are widely used because they are relatively easy and powerful to prove.

When using deductive argument, we should pay attention to several problems: first, the arguments of deductive argument (that is, the major premise in syllogism) generally require high authority and have strong persuasiveness after practice. Second, the arguments used in deductive argument should be closely related to the purpose of proof.

Step 3 reduce to absurdity

Reduction to absurdity, also known as "reduction to absurdity", is a rebuttal method of "attacking the shield with a spear". It is a method of assuming that the other party's argument is correct, and then drawing absurd conclusions through reasoning to prove the fallacy of the other party's argument.

4. Metaphorical argument

Metaphor argument is an argument method that uses concrete, vivid and vivid things as metaphors to prove more abstract truth. Is to extrapolate. Its function is to make the truth easier to understand and accept; And make the discussion lively and infectious.

5. Comparative demonstration

Comparative argument is to compare positive and negative arguments or arguments, and to prove arguments in comparison. Its function is to enhance the distinctiveness of the argument and leave a deep impression on people.

In comparative argumentation, there are many comparable factors: first, vertical comparison, that is, the comparison between history and present situation, past and present; The other is horizontal comparison, that is, this phenomenon is compared with that phenomenon, and this person is compared with that person; There is also a positive and negative contrast, that is, comparing or contrasting different things. There are also primary and secondary comparisons, light and heavy comparisons, etc.

Several problems that should be paid attention to when using comparative argument;

First, the two sides of the comparison should be comparable.

Second, we should establish a reasonable frame of reference. To compare, we must have a reasonable * * * frame of reference. Without a * * * frame of reference, the two cannot be compared. The so-called reference refers to the standards used to measure and determine the advantages and disadvantages of both parties. Such standards must be objective, otherwise the conclusion of comparison may not be reliable.

6. Analogy demonstration

Analogy argument is a method to compare different things with the same or similar properties and characteristics in some aspects, and infer that they may be similar in other characteristics according to their similarity in some characteristics, so as to draw a conclusion. Metaphor focuses on expressing the * * * relationship between things. Its logical form is: A has the attributes of A, B, C and D, and B has the attributes of A, B and C, so B may have the attributes of D. ..

Using analogy argument should pay attention to the following points:

(1) Use similar objects for analogy. There are infinitely many things in the world that have some identical or similar properties, and some of them are completely irrelevant. Comparing them is unconvincing.

(2) Avoid using analogy alone to demonstrate a way of argument. It is best to combine with other demonstration methods to supplement and enrich the proof.

③ Pay attention to the reliability of the conclusion. Unless there are certain circumstances, the conclusion is generally only a possibility. In terms of expression, we should grasp the discretion and not be absolute.

7, causal argument

Causal argument proves an argument by analyzing things and revealing the causal relationship between arguments. Causality argument can be proved by causality, effect and causality.

Using causal argument, we should not stay at the level of one cause and one effect, but be good at analyzing the causes and results from multiple angles, such as analyzing one cause and multiple effects, and also analyzing the same cause and different effects, the same cause and different effects, and mutual causality.