I. Definition and characteristics

The stem of argument validity analysis is an argument, which requires candidates to analyze and comment on the argument stated in the form of composition.

(A) a brief definition

The analysis of the validity of the argument is to analyze the invalidity of the argument, that is, to ask candidates: (1) to find out the most important logical problems in the argument; (2) Briefly describe why these problems become problems.

(b) Ability to demonstrate the effectiveness of analysis and testing

1, the ability to accurately sort out the problem reasoning schema.

2. The ability to find and confirm logical errors in arguments.

3. The ability to briefly analyze why these mistakes are wrong.

4. The ability to write fluent and beautiful articles in a clear and organized way.

(3) Main features

The difference between argumentative validity analysis and argumentative writing lies in that the object of argumentative analysis is the viewpoint or proposition stated in the test questions, and the author should show and demonstrate his attitude or viewpoint; The analysis object of argument validity analysis is the argument stated in the test questions, and the author does not need to take a clear attitude towards the viewpoints discussed in this argument. What the author wants to comment on is the validity of this argument.

Comments on an argument can be positive or negative. The argument stated in the argument validity analysis test is an argument with logical defects. Therefore, the analysis of argument validity in MBA comprehensive ability test requires candidates to find and analyze this defect.

Comment on an argument, or comment on an argument, has the following characteristics:

1. The goal of comment is to analyze the validity of the argument, that is, how acceptable the topic of comment is in this argument and why.

2. Comments on an argument have nothing to do with the commentators' attitude towards related topics. In other words, a commentator may not recognize a topic at all, but think that an argument on this topic is very powerful; Or you may agree with a topic, but think an argument on this topic is bad.

Therefore, for the validity analysis of argumentative essays in the comprehensive ability test of MBA entrance examination, it is not necessary to express the attitude towards the topic when writing, let alone argue whether the topic is true or not. What you should pay attention to is whether the topic has been fully and effectively demonstrated. Candidates should analyze the flaws or loopholes in the arguments given in the test questions, how these flaws and loopholes weaken the arguments, and how to make logical and convincing analysis and comments on them.

Second, the writing requirements

The general requirements of argument validity analysis and writing are: carefully read the arguments stated in the test questions, master their topics, arguments and argumentation methods, analyze their logical defects or loopholes, select several key points, and make convincing comments on the validity of the arguments with standardized words.

When designing and writing the validity analysis of argument, you can refer to the following points.

1. What are the topics, arguments and methods of this argument?

2. Is the demonstration clear, correct and consistent in the definition and use of concepts (especially core concepts)?

3. Is the argument true? If the evidence is false, how to prove it?

4. Although the falsity of the argument is difficult to prove, can its authenticity be questioned from a certain angle and to some extent? For example, does the truth of the argument depend on other factors? If so, are these factors of course reasonable?

5. Even if the argument is established, is it enough to support the topic? If the argument proves the causal relationship between events, are there any reasons not mentioned in other arguments?

6. To draw a conclusion from the premise, do you need to assume other conditions besides the arguments already expressed? Are these conditions true?

7. Are there any logical loopholes in the reasoning and methods used in the demonstration?

8. Are there any stronger arguments that have been ignored? What changes can be made to this argument to enhance its persuasiveness?

9. Does the argument inappropriately extend and popularize the proved conclusion?

When analyzing the validity of an argument, you can briefly state the overall evaluation of the argument at the beginning, and then select several key points to analyze and comment on the validity of the argument in sections around defects, loopholes or deficiencies (if they really exist).

Considering the space, generally speaking, three or four such points can be determined, not too many. Of course, it can't be too little. The topic of the composition can generally be determined after the composition is completed.

The conception and writing of the composition should proceed from the actual content of the test questions, from the perspective of showing and demonstrating the logical analysis ability and writing expression ability of the candidates, rather than from some fixed patterns.

Third, misunderstanding and thinking guidance

When writing an argument validity analysis, one of the biggest defects of candidates is that their way of thinking cannot be transferred, and they often argue with the original argument unconsciously instead of evaluating it. You know, there are essential differences between the words debate and evaluation. The most important thing in evaluation is to grasp the standard, understand the original argument clearly, accurately and thoroughly, what is the conclusion, what are the reasons, and how many reasons support the conclusion. It should be evaluated closely around this level. Debate is not. People say swans are white, but you say swans are not all black and white. This is a debate. Therefore, some people write the validity analysis of the argument as a rebuttal paper to refute and refute the original argument. At the same time, we know that criticism and evaluation are two different things. Criticism should not only prove that the argument is wrong and the reasons are incorrect, but also allow some private or special reasons to be quoted. The reasons for evaluation are public reasons and must conform to the rules. Just like a football match, the referee can't judge the game according to personal standards or preferences.

If the argument validity analysis writing does not meet the requirements, the score will be quite low, which will be below eight; Good writing can reach more than 25 points. Compared with argumentative writing, the writing of argumentative validity analysis is more operable, and candidates have more room to improve their scores. Because there is a set of evaluation criteria when designing the test questions, the main logical loopholes of argumentation are limited, so the evaluation and argumentation is to focus on whether the reasons are conclusive and whether the reasons correctly support its conclusions. The important reason for students' unsatisfactory performance in this respect is that their way of thinking has not changed at all.

First, I don't know what evaluation is.

Second, the analysis and understanding of the original argument are not thorough when we know how to evaluate it.

Some candidates know how to evaluate, but because of his inaccurate analysis and understanding of the original argument, the evaluation is crooked, just to find fault. Therefore, it is very important to improve the ability to analyze and understand arguments.

In order to improve the effectiveness analysis quickly in a short time:

First, we should adhere to the principle of tolerance in analyzing and understanding the original argument.

Second, adhere to the principle of neutrality when evaluating the original argument.

The so-called neutrality principle is to evaluate according to critical standards, to understand and analyze his arguments from a neutral position, rather than to find fault with others.

If you don't find fault with the routine of argument, it is crooked, so these two standards are very important. If you master these two standards, plus a series of training, you will improve quickly.

Find three or four flaws in the argument, not the more the better. When analyzing the validity of writing arguments, candidates are often not sure about the evaluation points. The more they write inaccurately, the more loopholes they may have and the more points they will lose. If you write 5 points, even if the first 3 to 4 points are correct and the last 1 point is wrong, you will lose points. The outline clearly stipulates three to four points. There is also a word limit, which generally requires 600 words to write 700 words.

First, it can't be very accurate. If you make a mistake, you will be deducted. Second, we should not only list the main points, but also give good evaluation reasons. We just want to make three or four points clear. For these two reasons, the more the better is a wrong view.

The second chapter discusses the writing countermeasures of validity analysis.

The first section basic requirements

First, understand the purpose of the writing test.

The daily work of business administration is management, which is to accomplish tasks better through others. The essence is communication, and communication is nothing more than "listening" and "speaking": understanding what others say and how to respond is analytical ability; How to persuade others to accept their own ideas and opinions is to demonstrate the ability to express. So MBA writing is to test these two abilities separately. Argumentative validity analysis writing is to examine the ability of listening, understanding, analysis and evaluation; On thesis writing is to examine the ability of argumentation and expression.

Second, form a way of thinking and master the principles of writing.

(1) One is yes and two are not.

Ken: Accept the original factual arguments and premises.

If we want to deny the argumentation process and conclusion, we must first accept the original factual arguments and premises, enter its ideological interior and logical space, understand its logical thinking, find its logical loopholes, and then find its conclusion, which is the main target of the attack. If you don't even accept the original factual arguments and premises of the original text and pick out its conclusion to deny it, it will be written as a rebuttal.

No: analyze the logical problems in the process of reasoning and argumentation to deny its argumentation process, and then question and deny its conclusion (but don't use too absolute words).

(B) the core point of the conclusion

1, demonstrating three elements

Any argument has three elements: the first is the topic, that is, the conclusion to be demonstrated; The second is the argument, that is, the premise used to infer the conclusion in the argument; The third is the way of argumentation, that is, the logical method used in argumentation, especially the reasoning form and process used.

2. The conclusion is the purpose of the whole analytical writing.

Among the three elements, conclusion, argument and argumentation mode, conclusion is the core, and the whole argumentation is centered around conclusion. Questioning or denying the conclusion of the question is the ultimate goal of argumentation validity analysis writing. Writing is successful only when the conclusion of the topic is strongly questioned or denied.

3. There should be corresponding responses to these three elements.

Because "argument" contains three elements: conclusion, argument and argument form, a comprehensive and accurate analysis of the validity of an argument should be as follows: on the one hand, grasp the argument and conclusion, analyze the logical problems existing in the argument process on the basis of accepting the original factual arguments and premises as much as possible (generally 4-5 and 4 are the best), and finally point out that the conclusion of the argument cannot be obtained through the above arguments.

Third, stay away from writing mistakes.

Myth 1: Put aside the conclusion of the topic and only attack the argument and argumentation process of the topic.

This is a way to find logical errors in order to find logical errors, forgetting that the conclusion of the stem is the core of the whole stem.

Myth 2: Put aside the argument and argumentation process of the topic and only attack its conclusion.

This kind of writing does not enter the logical reasoning space and internal thought of the topic, and is a writing method to refute the paper.

Myth 3: There are more comments and less analysis, so write comments.

In the outline expression, "the stem of argument validity analysis is an argument, which requires candidates to analyze and comment on the arguments stated in the stem in the form of composition", with analysis as the main part and comments as the supplement. When writing, analyze before commenting. The main part of the article should be analysis, and the comment can only be accompanied by one sentence at the end: "To sum up, due to the problems of the above reasoning, we think that a series of conclusions it draws are also difficult to establish."

The second section demonstrates the process of analysis and argumentation. Excerpted from Junior MBA Writing. If necessary, go to Baidu to search the original. )

The answer is professional enough, hehe.