-Argumentative writing discussion (2)

When some students write argumentative essays covering a wide range, such as talking about ambition, modesty and turning point, it is easy to make a mistake, that is, they only focus on the central words such as ambition, modesty and turning point. The result is that although great efforts have been made in the discussion of prefix, it always gives people a superficial and superficial feeling.

To solve this problem in argumentative writing, it is very important to establish several sub-arguments related to the central word or central argument and explain the central word or central argument from different angles.

For example, we are all familiar with Wu Han's argumentative essay "Talk about backbone", which puts forward the central argument of the whole paper at the beginning: "We China people have backbone". After that, the author puts forward the following three sub-arguments around this central argument: 1, China people can't be prostitutes if they have money; 2. China people are poor and can't move; The people of China are strong and unyielding. This paper expounds that China people have backbone from three aspects, and proves that we China people have backbone from different angles with examples such as Wen Tianxiang refusing the temptation of high officials and rich people to die generously, a poor man in ancient times preferring to starve to death rather than eat food, and Wen Yiduo being fearless in the face of the assassination of Kuomintang agents. Such an argumentative essay is a good article with both depth and persuasiveness.

The so-called sub-argument is actually the concrete expression of the central word or the central argument in the process of elaboration. For example, you said in the article "Talk about backbone" that we China people have backbone, and people certainly don't understand what "backbone" means here. Therefore, the author gives a concrete explanation of "backbone" from three aspects: wealth cannot be lewd, poverty cannot be moved, and power cannot be bent. For another example, if you want to write the article "On the Turning Point", you must also give a specific explanation of the "turning point". First of all, from the scope, "turning point" is an overall turning point related to the national economy and people's livelihood, a local turning point related to a certain group, and an individual turning point related to someone. Secondly, in nature, "turning point" has a benign turning point from bad to good, a vicious turning point from good to bad, a turning point from good to bad and then from bad to good or from good to bad. Thirdly, from the perspective of effect, the "turning point" can turn bad people into good people and good people into bad people; You can turn bad things into good things, or you can turn good things into bad things. Finally, from its connection with the outside world, the "turning point" needs both external and internal forces, and also needs the * * * interaction between external and internal forces. Each of the above aspects can lead to at least three arguments.

It should be noted that when designing sub-arguments, we must stick to the central word or the central argument and try to avoid the so-called "sub-arguments" that have nothing to do with the central word or the central argument. There is a student who wants to write an argumentative essay on the topic of "Talking about ambition". To this end, he identified the following three sub-arguments: 1, ambition is the guarantee of career success; 2. Self-confidence inserts the wings of success for you; Ambition comes from the unremitting pursuit of ideals. The first argument can deduct the central word "ambition". Since the second argument is about "confidence", it has nothing to do with the central word "ambition". Although the third argument is also related to "ambition", it is different from the first argument (the first argument is analyzed from the effect of "ambition" and the third argument is analyzed from the source of "ambition"). Although the word "ambition" is used, it is also reluctantly tied together.

When designing sub-arguments, the angle of each sub-argument must be unified. If you write an argumentative essay on modesty, you can design sub-arguments from the perspective of the role of modesty: 1, modesty can strengthen yourself; 2. Modesty can unite the United States; 3. Modesty is the only way to get things done ... You can also design arguments from the perspective of modesty: 1. If you want to learn something, you must be modest; 2. To make the collective live in harmony, we must be modest; 3. To make the country prosperous, we must be modest ... or we can design the argument from the perspective of moderate performance: 1. Modesty is learning without being tired; 2. Modesty is not ashamed to ask questions; 3. Modesty requires courtesy, corporal ... but you can't break the boundaries from different angles. For example, you have designed the following three sub-arguments: 1, modesty can make you strong; 2. To make the collective live in harmony, we must be modest; 3. Modesty needs corporal's courtesy. This will not work. Because the angles of the three arguments are different, it violates the principle that the angles of the arguments must be unified.

According to the relationship between them, each argument can be divided into parallel argument and progressive argument. For example, the three sub-arguments in Tan Gu, that is, wealth can't be lewd, poverty can't be moved, and power can't be bent, constitute a parallel relationship, because it doesn't matter which of these three aspects is more important, and everyone is equal. The above three sub-arguments designed to talk about modesty are progressive, that is, let yourself learn something, let the collective live in harmony and make the country rich and strong. The first argument is about "self", the second argument is about "collective" and the third argument is about "country". There is a relationship between them, that is, the scope of discussion is gradually expanding.

Generally speaking, the fractional arguments with progressive relationship gradually transition from a relatively small range to a relatively large range in order. But there are exceptions, that is, turning them upside down, that is, gradually transitioning from a larger range to a smaller range. For example, if you want to write an argumentative essay on a topic, you can first analyze that complacency will stop the country or nation, then analyze that complacency will stop the collective or unit, and then analyze that complacency will stop the individual from making progress, so that the scope will gradually narrow. Although it seems that the scope is gradually narrowing, there is a deepening relationship in terms of the depth of its discussion. Because it only analyzes the harm of complacency to a country, a nation and a collective unit, people's experience about it is not profound. Only by combining the harm of complacency with everyone's vital interests can we have a painful experience and the article be convincing. Therefore, from the effect of expression, the inversion of this kind of argument is within the allowable range.