But now the situation is: in order to be safe and skilled in the exam, we have made great efforts in modeling and intuition of the composition, but we have little guidance and practice in "profundity".
Then, why is our composition not profound enough?
One of the reasons: our ideological understanding is too superficial. There are two reasons for the ups and downs of thoughts. First, I read too little, especially rational and thoughtful books. Those purely entertaining, humorous and imaginative things generally have little effect on improving my ideological cultivation. Second, there is a lack of reflection. We are not sensitive enough to nature, society, life and ourselves, and lack of regular summary and thinking. As Pushkin said in yevgeni onegin, "We live in a hurry and have no time to feel."
The second reason: our writing is too shallow. There are often "new material compositions" in college entrance examination questions. After reading the materials, we should make great efforts to examine the questions and make suggestions. But many times, we only pay attention to "what" and lack the analysis of "why" and "how to do it". For example, if we look at the information of the detour of youth, it will be a bit shallow if we only discuss the detour of youth when we conceive it; If we dig deeply into "why youth must take a detour" and "how youth takes a detour", our thinking will be much deeper. For example, reading the material "Blank on the Road of Life", if you just write "There is always a blank on the road of life", it means telling everyone only one phenomenon; If we further discuss the "blank act" and "the value of blank to life", this thought will be more profound.
The third reason: we don't have enough analysis and explanation of the case. Many students are used to piling up materials (mainly examples) when writing argumentative papers, but lack the significance and value of material details and the analysis and elaboration after examples; Some even have analytical sentences, but they often pass by. As we all know, whether an argumentative paper is profound or not is not directly related to the examples. The use of examples is only typical, atypical, accurate and inaccurate, and the profundity of the argument is precisely reflected in the analysis, interpretation and refinement of these examples. Therefore, in terms of material narration, I put forward such an "extreme" requirement for my classmates: I would rather have concise examples and full explanations.
The fourth reason: we lack concise warning language. Of course, the language of argumentative writing can be unpretentious, but we are not opposed to concise and powerful language, especially those "witticisms" that reflect students' understanding of nature, society, life and themselves, which are the places where profound thoughts are reflected and the highlights that attract readers. Why don't we try to beautify such a statement in the article?
In the above four aspects, improving ideological understanding is a long-term and step-by-step training effort, which can't be accomplished overnight, just need to strengthen consciousness. As for the other three aspects, it belongs to the technical level We can achieve "profound" goals through short-term training, which is exactly what we should focus on at this stage.