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", that is, why … (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 the argument from the perspective of "how", that is, how to reach the argument. This method is very controversial. Some people think it is off topic (I think so), while others think it is not off topic. 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; Eternal hope makes people learn to persist. Because your central argument is that persistence is success, these three sub-arguments (generally three sub-arguments 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 consistent as much as possible. This is an unwritten rule, and no one can do anything about it, because it looks awkward if the number of words is inconsistent.

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