Coordinate formula: set from the angle of "what", that is, what is the topic. For example, your central argument is persistence to achieve success, so the sub-arguments can be: persistence is the power of faith; Persistence is the test of will; Persistence is the light of wisdom.

The second type, progressive, is generally set from the perspective of "why". Why is this ... (topic). For example, the central argument is persistence in achieving success, and the sub-arguments can be: persistence in achieving personal success; Persist in realizing scientific and technological progress; Persist in realizing your national dream.

Another way is to set it from the perspective of "how", that is, how to realize the argument. This method is very controversial. Some people think this is beside the point (I think so), while others think it is not. For example, the central argument is that persistence is success, which can be set as follows: great ambition makes people learn to persist; In adversity, people learn to persist; The immortality of hope makes people learn to persist. Because your central argument is that persistence is success, these three sub-arguments (generally there are three sub-arguments, which are beautiful, but there is no definite method) have nothing to do with success, but only with persistence, so I personally think this is beside the point.

It should also be noted that the number of words in sub-arguments must be as same as possible. This is an unwritten rule, and no one can help it, because different words look awkward.

If it can't be set, there is no need to suppress it. You can write an argumentative essay without writing a sub-argument.