There is an ancient saying: "To make friends, you must overcome yourself, as if I were worse than nothing." Of course, the general idea is easy to understand, that is to say, when making friends, you should look for people who are more talented than yourself, so that you can get more lessons in your communication. If their talents are comparable to yours, you might as well not pay them. When I first read this sentence, I felt quite reasonable, at least expressing the idea that people should have a positive attitude. Yes, a netizen mentioned it suddenly today, and I suddenly felt that this sentence was "illogical". The reason why it is said to be "illogical" or even a paradox is simple: if everyone follows this "law", if you want to make friends with someone who is more talented than you, he can't make friends with you because you are worse than him. Once he makes friends with you, he will violate this "law". Therefore, this sentence is not actually followed by people all over the world, otherwise human beings will not have the saying of "high mountains and flowing water". Writing here, I suddenly thought of a problem. When I was in middle school, I was very young. From grade one to grade one, I have been sitting in the first row of the classroom. Besides, I am an honest man by nature, and I don't seem to have fought with anyone so far. Honest people like me, even studying in other places for a long time, have never been bullied by local "bad kids". Here is a simple secret: I have a close relationship with these "bad boys". Of course, some people may say that I found an "umbrella". To tell the truth, under the circumstances at that time, I was really a little "selfish"-relying on them to protect myself. Because they all know that I am "fragile", they will not let me take part in the battle, because I may not bring them strength support and may be a drag, but they never seem to underestimate me. Some middle school friends who are close to me now are still "bad boys" in those days. On the contrary, those who were more "talented" than me in middle school seemed to really believe in the theorem that "making friends must be better than myself, as if I were better than nothing", and rarely became friends later. People have different talents and abilities. But as the saying goes, "Three heads are better than one Zhuge Liang." A person's comprehensive ability may not be high, but his outstanding length may be exactly what a person with high comprehensive ability lacks. Isn't it equally instructive to make friends with him? In fact, if you read more books, you will find that many so-called "famous sayings" of the ancients are actually contradictory. For example, "the book has its own golden house" and "money is like dirt"; "Be careful when making friends", "The observer is not a disciple" and so on. Writing here, it suddenly occurred to me that Mao Zedong once said, "Chiang Kai-shek would rather be president than Juan." Yes, in my opinion, even if politicians sometimes become cruel or even "inhuman", at a certain stage in history, they should be more rational than "a scholar". Bringing peace and stability to the country is by no means a mission that "an article dedicated to love" or "a lofty self-esteem" can undertake! 1. Argument (what to prove) Argument should be a complete expression of the author's point of view and a complete, concise and clear sentence in form. Judging from the full text, it will be able to control the full text. The form of expression is often a judgment sentence expressing affirmation or negation, and it is a clear statement sentence. A. grasp the argument of the article. Only one central argument (command sub-argument) (1) is clear: there can be n sub-arguments (to supplement and prove the central argument); (2) the method (1) can be found from the position: such as title, beginning, middle and end. ② Analyze the arguments of the article. (it can be used to test whether the expected argument is appropriate) 3 Abstract method (only sub-argument, no central argument) B. Analyze how the argument is put forward: 1 Summarize the argument after putting facts and reasoning; ② Cut to the chase and put forward the central argument; (3) Propose topics according to the phenomena existing in life, and summarize the central arguments through analysis and discussion; (4) Summarize the central argument after describing the author's experience; ⑤ The author asks questions from the story, then analyzes and infers them step by step, and finally draws a conclusion and puts forward the central argument. 2. Argument (with what proof) (1) Argument type: (1) Fact argument (summarize after giving examples, and strictly summarize arguments); (2) argument (quote famous words to analyze). (2) The arguments should be true, reliable and typical (subject matter, country, ancient and modern, etc.). ). (3) Sequential arrangement (reference argument); (4) judging whether the argument can prove the argument; 5] Supplementary arguments (proof arguments). 3. Argumentation (how to prove it) (1) Argumentation method (must be four words) (1) Illustration (example method) Narration of factual arguments (2) Reasoning argument (citation method and reasoning method) (3) Comparative argument (itself can also be example argument and reasoning argument) (4) Metaphor argument metaphor is ⑵ Analysis and demonstration process: ① How the demonstration was put forward; (2) How the argument is proved (which truths and facts are used, and whether there are positive and negative analysis and reasoning); (3) Contact the structure of the full text, whether there is an abstract. (3) the completeness of the argument (a) make the argument more comprehensive and complete, and avoid misunderstanding) (4) the role of analysis and argumentation: to prove the argument in this paragraph. 4. The structure of argumentative essay ① General form: ① Introduction (asking questions)-② Theory (analyzing problems)-③ Conclusion (solving problems). ⑵ Type: ① Parallel type ② Total score formula ③ Total score formula ④ Total score formula ⑤ Progressive type. 6. Refuting the reading of the paper (1) What is the wrong viewpoint that the author wants to refute? (2) How does the author refute it, and what reasons and arguments are used; (3) From this, what is the correct view established by the author?