The central sentence about Cheng has different interpretations in different materials. Generally speaking, there are three answers, one is "There are Bole in the world, and then there are swift horses", the other is the second sentence "There are swift horses, but there are no two Boles" (this is the answer of Baidu Encyclopedia now), and the third is "Is the horse really innocent?" I really don't know this horse. "Of these three statements, the second one can be basically ruled out: both its position and its meaning are actually explanations of the first sentence, which is not appropriate as the argument of the full text. The right and wrong of "beginning" and "end" has always been the focus of debate. As a result, some assistant teachers have adopted a confused statement: the first sentence is the central sentence of this article, and the last sentence is the main sentence of this article. In this way, the center and the theme have become two concepts with different meanings. So there is an explanation: the center is biased towards the main content, and the theme is biased towards the purpose and motivation of writing. However, for an argumentative essay in classical Chinese with the topic of "Shuo", this sentence may be "unclear, the more you explain, the more confused you become". Why do you say that? First of all, it must be clear that Shuo is an article expressing opinions and opinions on one thing, and it is an argumentative paper; The essence of argumentative writing is that it must meet the basic requirements of argumentative writing and must have such basic elements as "argument, argument and argumentation". Then, the central sentence and the main sentence of the passage should be the same concept, which is the central argument of this paper. Therefore, Ma Shuo's central sentence should not be ambiguous in front of junior middle school students who are just beginning to learn argumentative writing, but should be as clear as possible. Combining teaching practice and my own thinking, I think the central sentence of this article is the first sentence for the following reasons. First, meet the requirements of argumentative writing. The basic paradigm of argumentative writing generally requires an argument from the beginning, and later it even becomes the minimum requirement of imperial examination articles (such as "bearing the topic and breaking the topic"). As an advocate and practitioner of the ancient prose movement, Han Yu's reasoning articles trace back to the pre-Qin philosophers, emphasizing that "words must be based on their ways", "only what they do" and "learning what they mean without saying what they say". This article is the work of his early career, and the pattern of the article is cautious. The first sentence puts forward the argument, and the second sentence "there are often swift horses without bole" is a complement from the opposite side; Then, the first paragraph below "So Famous Horses" is a concrete explanation of the meaning of the central argument: because there is no Bole, even if there is a swift horse, it is not called a thousand miles. This way of putting forward arguments first and then supplementing them is still regarded as the standard by most rigorous writers. Second, the argument is logical. Let's analyze the beginning and end of the sentence from a logical point of view. " There is Bole in the world, and then there is a swift horse "is a particularly positive judgment, which can be simplified as" You know horses if you are Bole "; At the end of this sentence, "Is it really innocent? "I really don't know horses" is a special negative judgment, which can be simplified as "I don't know horses unless I am Bole". Logically speaking, the predicate of special positive judgment is GAI's, while special negative judgment sometimes becomes a false proposition. My knowledge of logic was 20 years ago. I wrote it for nothing. I'll see if it's correct later. Third, from the full text. These contents are clear, so the function of the last sentence is clear. "Is there really no horse evil?" I really don't know the horse "is an evaluation as a specific argument, and it is a bridge between this argument and the center of the full text." In other words, this sentence provides evidence for the central argument from the opposite side and cannot be used as the central sentence or the main sentence of the full text. Fourthly, judging from the style of Shuo, the last sentence is the main sentence because there are indeed articles of this type, such as Snake Catcher. However, the beginning of such articles is mostly narrative, which paves the way for the following articles, so it can not be used as a normal paradigm. For example, Borrowing Books by Huang Sheng begins with "You can't read books without borrowing books", which is similar to this article. We noticed an interesting phenomenon. In the 1990s, the teaching center in Ma Shuo tended to criticize "feudal rulers buried talents". It is more rational to emphasize the dialectical relationship between talent discoverer and talent now. The former does take the last sentence as the "theme", but it is more of an emotional expression; The latter, centered on the first sentence, is a kind of rational thinking. Although the above two are inseparable, too much ideological interpretation is not conducive to the formation of rational speculation. The above four points are my understanding of Ma Shuo's central argument and some popular views.