How to quickly form an argumentative essay structure is a problem that many students are interested in. One way is to master several useful demonstration modes in the usual training. There is no fixed method for writing, but there are rules. Method is method and skill. This is not a product invented by anyone out of thin air, but the crystallization of countless people's writing practice for thousands of years. Some people worry that if students master a little "method", "skill" and even "mode", their thinking will be bound, and they will write an eight-part essay of "one thousand people". This kind of worry cannot be said to be unreasonable, but as long as it is properly guided, "there is a law" without dying, and the flexible "there is a law" will not have a negative impact. If "law" is fundamentally denied, what "flexibility" is there? In fact, the reason why our composition training often has little effect is precisely because of the lack of "law" guidance.

The "basic mode of discourse structure" we refer to here refers to the basic "methods" and basic routines of discourse layout. What an article says first, then what it says, and which layer to say after finishing one layer, there must always be an order; A common sequence is often selected from practice, and the selection criteria are often determined by the effect. When a sequence is used for a long time, it becomes a tradition and a "model". Therefore, this "mode" is a reflection of the law of article structure and a tool to help people write quickly and well. Let's introduce two basic structural models:

I. Load-bearing conversion type

The word "from beginning to end" has a bad reputation because of "stereotyped writing" In fact, it reflects the law of a structural article. Not to mention a considerable number of quatrains and metrical poems, the prose of "Eight Masters in Tang and Song Dynasties" is not uncommon in newspapers and periodicals, and it is not uncommon to use "connecting the preceding with the following". For example, Han Yu's "Teacher's Theory" begins with the argument that "ancient scholars must have teachers", and this argument is "Qi". Then, from the perspective of "why", we should learn from the teacher: "A teacher is a teacher, so it is a profession that teaches him to solve problems." And "those who are not born to know, no one can doubt", so "they must learn from the teacher"; Moreover, "the existence of Tao is the existence of teacher", and this "teacher" should be based on "Tao". -this is a "commitment", which is to carry forward the past and discuss our own views. Then a sigh: "Hehe! The teacher's teaching has been handed down for a long time! " Reveal all kinds of behaviors and remarks that are ashamed to follow the teacher, and the serious consequences caused by being ashamed to follow the teacher: the so-called "gentleman" is not as smart as the "omnipotent witch doctor". -this is the "turn", from positive discussion of "turn" to criticism of wrong words and deeds, and from the opposite side to discuss your own views. Finally, Confucius' words and deeds are quoted as evidence, which not only buckles the beginning of "ancient scholars must have teachers", but also binds the pros and cons: "So disciples don't have to be inferior to teachers, teachers don't have to be superior to disciples, and teaching and learning have priority, that's all." -This is "combination", summary, synthesis and the end of argument. Another example is Su Xun's "Six Kingdoms", which puts forward an argument at the beginning: "The collapse of the Six Kingdoms is not conducive to the soldiers, and it is harmful to Qin if it is not good at war." In addition, it is written that "the way to destroy Qin must not lose strength" and "those who do not accept bribes will lose their lives." Without strong support, you can't do it alone. "This is" up ". Then there is "responsibility", which discusses my own views from two aspects: the "briber" died because of lack of strength and the "ungrateful person" died because of lack of assistance. These two paragraphs constitute the main body of the article. After the formal discussion, it is not unreasonable to stop here, but the author "turned" to another level: "To make the Three Kingdoms love the people, Qi people can't be attached to Qin, assassins can't do it, and good generals are still there, so the number of winners and losers and the principle of survival may not be easy to measure when compared with Qin. Oh! I sealed the world's counselors with the land of Qin, served the world's wizards with the heart of Qin, and strived to advance westward, lest the Qin people could not swallow their meals. " This is a hypothetical sentence, a way to imagine "unfairness" from the opposite side, and a journey of resistance. This "turn" not only made the previous discussion more powerful, but also laid the foundation for satirizing the rulers of the Song Dynasty. After "bereavement" comes "harmony". Summarize the lessons of "death" and the way out of "immortality" and end the process of argument.

As a basic mode, "connecting the preceding with the following" has its own characteristics. But it is not rigid, but flexible. First of all, Qi is started in different ways. The viewpoint of direct application is "beginning", and asking questions is also "beginning"; In a word, it is the beginning like Shi Shuo, and there are both "general theory" and "separate theory" and "beginning" like Six Kingdoms. There are also different ways to "bear". Positive discussion is "tolerance" and negative discussion is also "tolerance"; From several aspects and levels, it is "inheritance", which is also "inheritance" if it is carried out by different argumentation methods. There are also different steering modes. If it is a positive commitment, it can be reversed, and if it is a negative commitment, it can be turned forward; Criticizing fallacy is a "turn", and so is conceiving from the opposite side. There are different ways to "combine". The emphasis can be different, positive or negative; The foothold can be different, can stop at understanding, can also fall into practice, and so on. Isn't it rich to be so flexible? Moreover, the four steps of "starting and turning" are not necessarily complete, and there may be no "starting", no "turning" and sometimes "closing" is not needed. It's like using a metaphor. The typical figurative structure is "how ontology looks like a vehicle", but in speech practice, ontology and figurative words do not necessarily appear, and "how" representing similarity does not necessarily appear. It seems that syllogism is used for reasoning. A complete syllogism consists of three parts: major premise, minor premise and conclusion. But in practice, one part or even two parts can often be omitted. The use of "mode" is to adapt to the needs of content and life. With this awareness of proceeding from reality, the "model" can be of great use.

Second, the logical reasoning formula

Formal logic studies the structure and laws of thinking forms. The structure of thinking form is not something created by people subjectively, but fixed by people in long-term practice. The function of formal logic is mainly to help people think correctly, but also to help people express. In argumentative writing, various thinking forms and laws revealed by formal logic are very useful. For argument structure, what can be directly transmitted is reasoning.

Reasoning is a form of thinking, from one or several judgments to derive another judgment. The judgment based on it is called "premise", and the judgment derived from it is called "conclusion". The conclusion derived from the premise must have a certain way and follow a certain law. Each form of reasoning can directly constitute the "argumentative structure" of argumentative writing.

For example:

Anyone who dies for the people's interests is more important than Mount Tai, and Comrade Zhang Side died for the people's interests, so Comrade Zhang Side's death is more important than Mount Tai.

This is a three-part deductive reasoning, so it is also called "syllogism". The first two paragraphs are called "premise" and the third paragraph is called "conclusion". The first premise expresses a progressive value, and the second premise expresses an objective fact. According to the content of these two premises and the relationship between them, we can draw a conclusion, which is the value judgment of an individual thing-Zhang Side's death. If we want to express our views on Zhang Side's death when writing an argumentative essay, and this view is that his death is "more important than Mount Tai", we might as well take this reasoning structure as the argumentation structure of our article: the first layer states that "all people who die for the people's interests are more important than Mount Tai", and the second layer states that Comrade Zhang Side died for the people's interests ".Finally, we can draw our own conclusions and end the full text with a little play.

Another example is:

Only by seeking truth from facts can we do a good job in China. We sincerely want to do a good job in China, so we must adhere to the principle of seeking truth from facts.

The first premise of this "syllogism" is a hypothetical complex sentence of a necessary condition, which expresses a universal truth; The second premise expresses a will, a determination, and affirms the result in the first premise; This leads to a conclusion and affirms the conditions in the first premise. If we want to advocate the spirit of "seeking truth from facts", we might as well take it as the basic framework of the article and form an argument structure.

Another example is:

There are three different attitudes towards young people's thinking of seeking differences: either correct guidance, finger-pointing criticism, or resolute opposition and forced suppression. We should not criticize, oppose or suppress. Therefore, we should give correct guidance.

This is also a "syllogism", but its first premise is a choice complex sentence, which puts forward "three different attitudes" (basically these three attitudes towards young people's divergent thinking), and these three attitudes are mutually exclusive. The second premise denies the two attitudes, thus deducing the conclusion and affirming the only desirable correct attitude. If you want to write an article about "taking a correct guiding attitude towards young people's thinking of seeking differences", you can take this reasoning structure as the argumentation structure of the article.

All the above are forms of "deductive reasoning" and "syllogism", and inductive reasoning can also be used as the argumentation structure of the article. Different from deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning does not deduce the individual from the general, but from the individual and the special, and from the special and the individual facts. Mr. Zou Taofen's "gag" is a typical inductive reasoning structure;

Courage, maintaining righteousness, need to be dull; Learning any knowledge requires profound attainments and needs to be dull; Joining the revolutionary cause to save our compatriots needs to be dull; If you want to be loyal to your duties, you need to be dull; To make reliable friends, you need to be a little slow. Therefore, the benefits of blandness are great and indispensable.

From the first paragraph, each floor says one aspect, and several consecutive floors say almost all aspects of life; Since everything you do must be dull, the conclusion that "people must be dull" is unshakable. Jia Yi's On Qin (I) is also an inductive reasoning structure. It does not list many individual facts separately, but analyzes a typical fact of Qin, and finally draws a general conclusion. Firstly, the article tells the historical fact that Qin developed strongly and unified the world, and then suddenly died (this narrative has its own points of praise and criticism, that is, its narrative angle serves its own point of view), then makes a comparative analysis (the comparison between Qin itself and the six countries of Shandong), points out the inevitability of cause and effect, and finally draws the conclusion that "benevolence and righteousness are not applied, and the offensive and defensive potential is different". The credibility of this conclusion lies not only in the previous description, but also in the later analysis. The article makes readers know not only why, but also why, which is very convincing.