Argumentative writing should convince people with reasoning, right? Then convince people by reasoning, how can people convince you? I think you are right to let him serve you, but you don't care who will serve you? How can people think that you are right? You should use materials to prove your point of view, and there must be a strict causal relationship between your materials and your point of view. When you use every material, even when you write down every sentence, you should consider: can this lead to that result? Because of what, so what, consider this; Can I write this with causality? You have to think about this. Let me make a simple analogy to prove that two triangles are congruent, or add an angle to both sides, or add an edge to both angles. Angle A equals angle AP, angle B equals angle BP, and AB equals AB, so the two triangles are congruent. You wrote this, which is very useful to prove this conclusion. I found that some students write compositions, so I still use this metaphor. The angle is 36 degrees, and the angle is BP7 1 degree. What does this have to do with triangular congruence? It's okay, it's okay. Why did you write it? We haven't paid enough attention to this. This is a problem in argumentative writing.

Many of our classmates have the habit of writing. Give me an opinion and I'll give you an example, two examples and three examples right away. Is there any reason? It's gone. Some students are more, four cases and five cases, only writing proofs, not argumentative papers. Arguments, arguments and proofs, no matter what line of work you are in. Of course, fact-finding is a method, but only a method. It's not easy to convince people if you only use this. When some of our classmates write hard work and plain living, Zhang San is hard work and plain living, Li Si is hard work and plain living, and Wang Wu is hard work and plain living, so we should be hard work and plain living. Why? This is why we need it. Can you convince people of this article? Some of us now, including some who are engaged in natural science, are really not interested in some doctors. The United States does this, Japan does this, and Britain does the same, so we should do this. Who said that? Are the national conditions the same? What's the reason? Many countries do this. Of course, I have no objection to you describing it as an experience. Is China's national conditions suitable? Why not start here? Learn to be reasonable. Well, the first big problem I want to talk about is to change from simple examples to reasoning with examples. For example, reasoning combined with this example, I will use this example. We should learn to master this method. When the example is finished, I will talk about it immediately, so that this example can better serve to prove the point. And what I said by analyzing this example is also to better serve the point of view and tie this case tightly. To do this, or in other words, don't you act as an agent? Replace truth with examples? All right, now let's be reasonable. This is very important.

Next, I'm going to talk about the second method, which is called stretching method. You gave an example, didn't you? Is this example an argument? From this argument, you may see some signs, some signs, and then you use this sign to extend it, that is, you see the signs. From this example, you can imagine some kind of result, and you can extend in that direction. So what is the difference between it and the hypothetical causality, or what is the difference? It is in this example that we can see some signs. Is this a complete hypothesis? They didn't stop, not the first time, not the 605th time.

The third method, I call it post-example explanation. This example explains how to use it. Where is it used? I want to remind everyone. You gave an example. When this example is very long, maybe you will have a worry: will others have a different understanding of this example center than me? You explain; Second, the example you gave is longer. Maybe you'll think about it. What does my example have to do with my point of view? Will others have a different understanding from me? Or I don't think my example is so closely related to what I want to say. At this point, you can explain this example. This example either explains what its center is or the relationship between this example and the center. Within this range, you can explain.

The fourth method, I call it positive and negative contrast. When I say positive and negative contrast, I don't like the positive or negative examples in your composition, or I put the two examples together here. Of course, it is inevitable to give examples, because what I am talking about here is positive and negative contrast, two situations. One situation is that I may have a positive example and a negative example here. However, I am not just counting here. I want to analyze this example further. Or, let me give you an example, which contains both positive and negative factors. This example is over. I will make a comparative analysis from both positive and negative aspects, focusing on analysis instead of giving examples.

I'd like to introduce another method by the way, not case analysis. By the way, what should I introduce? Our classmates also have a habit of writing compositions and like to quote famous sayings. So-and-so agreed and said what he meant, and it was over. So-and-so said that sentence, didn't his statement prove this truth? This proves the fact. So do you want to analyze what XXX said? I think it is necessary to analyze, not simply quote. Simple quotation is not good. Let me give you an example. What is this example for? I tell you, this method is called essay signing. Reveal a paragraph to explain its meaning. In the process of explaining the meaning of words, revealing the meaning of words makes this passage more convincing and can prove the point. Of course, explaining the meaning itself is also proving the point.

The second big question I want to talk about is whether we change our thinking and seek change and innovation.