Five "Essentials" should be achieved in writing examination-oriented argumentative papers. First, we should clearly put forward the argument. The so-called "distinctive" means that the author's attitude is clear, praise and condemnation are clear at a glance, and he is never vague. Second, it means that the language is clearly expressed, that is, it is generally expressed by concise phrases or sentences. If you use sentences, you often use judgmental sentences, such as "those who approach ink are black", "those who approach ink are not necessarily black" and "people's correct thoughts can only come from practice". Second, we should use accurate, fresh and representative arguments. "Accuracy" means that the argument itself is true and credible, and there is an essential and internal connection between the argument and the argument, that is, it can accurately prove the correctness of the argument. "Freshness" refers to new or rarely used materials, which can give people freshness and freshness as arguments. The second is to look at old materials from a new perspective and find new connotations, which gives people a refreshing feeling. For example, Playing the lute to a cow is generally used to laugh at a cow who doesn't understand music, but Mao Zedong satirizes the pianist from the point of view that the pianist doesn't look at the object, which has received a shocking effect. "representativeness" means that the argument should reflect the essential characteristics of things. For example, it is true that some cadres are corrupt and take bribes. However, it would be wrong to conclude that cadres are corrupt and take bribes now. Because corruption and bribery are not the essential characteristics of cadres. Accurate, fresh and representative arguments rely on the usual accumulation. Third, we should fully analyze the arguments. The so-called analysis and argumentation is to reveal some truth contained in argumentation and communicate with argumentation, thus showing the essential relationship between argumentation and argumentation. Fourth, we should arrange the structure of the article according to the argument. The structure of argumentative essays is often subject to arguments, especially argumentative essays with sub-arguments. Therefore, when arranging the structure of argumentative essays, we must adapt to the needs of arguments and reflect the relationship between sub-arguments. Fifth, use words accurately. The "accuracy" here means that what is said is correct. If the words are wrong, that is, the views are wrong, then everything else is in vain. Second, it refers to the proper use of words and a sense of proportion. Improper use of words can't clearly express the meaning to be expressed. If you don't have a good sense of proportion, you can't reflect things in essence.

Let's talk about arguments, arguments and structural models.

1. Methods of putting forward arguments and decomposing arguments

The most taboo of argumentative writing is that you can't find a clear argument in the text. Where does the argument come from? You have to refine it yourself. Different examination forms have different ways of presenting arguments.

Let's start with the proposition composition. The topics of propositional composition can be roughly divided into two categories: one is that the topics are arguments, such as "those who are near the ink are black", "those who are near the ink are not necessarily black" and "it is easier to destroy trees than to plant them"; The other is that the topic is just a topic, and the argument needs to be refined by the candidates themselves. The method is roughly as follows:

(1) Write in an unrestricted place. For example, the topic "On Xiao" is limited to the discussion of "Xiao", and there is no limit to what aspects of "Xiao" must be discussed. This is where we can play, and we can put forward different arguments from different angles: ① "small" is not small; ② Do small things seriously; 3 if a small hole is not mended, a big hole will suffer.

(2) Grasp the modifiers. For example, the topic of "starting the thinking machine" focuses on the modifier "thinking". Grasping it is clear that it is the human brain that "starts", not the machine in the general sense of production. Based on this, the following arguments can be drawn: ① The more brains you use, the smarter you are; ② Starting the thinking machine is one of the key factors for success. On the other hand, if we ignore the modifier "thinking" before the word "machine" in the proposition, the written article will definitely digress from Wan Li!

(3) Analyze the metaphorical meaning. For example, in the topic "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step", "A journey of a thousand miles" means a long journey, and "Starting with a single step" means that to reach a journey of a thousand miles, you must start step by step. Taken together, the metaphorical meaning of this idiom lies in: the success of things is accumulated from small to large. On this basis, we can put forward an argument from the front: only by unremitting efforts can we succeed. You can also argue from the opposite side that nothing can be successful without small efforts.

(4) Digging for meaning. For example, the topic "crossroads" may be a real reference or a virtual reference, but it is more likely to be both, meaning pun. As the topic of an argumentative essay, I am afraid it contains more abstract meanings, that is, important choices to be made at critical moments. Based on this, we can put forward different arguments according to different "crossroads": ① When making serious mistakes, we can advocate that admitting mistakes is the best policy. (2) When you have a heavy ideological burden on your back, you can argue like this: throw away the burden and move forward lightly. When you are not admitted to the university, you can argue that self-study can also be successful. Or: All roads lead to Rome ... 5) Reveal the relationship. For example, the topic of "trees, forests and climate" is not only juxtaposed, but also causal and interlocking, similar to the relationship between some things in human social life. So the argument of "correctly handling the relationship between things" came into being.

Talk about material composition again. Judging from the simulation questions of college entrance examination in various places, the materials provided can be roughly summarized as: factual materials, theoretical materials, fable materials, comic materials, combined materials and so on. Because different materials have different characteristics, the methods of refining arguments should also vary from material to material. Factual materials can extract arguments from the analysis of the relationship between various materials. For example, 1992 college entrance examination composition provides a factual material, from which many arguments can be extracted:

An argument distilled from the relationship reflected in the material.

Personal behavior and public morality It is everyone's responsibility to abide by public morality.

Personal behavior and spiritual civilization "Lei Feng spirit" need to be advocated for a long time.

There is a kind of heat between ability and dedication, which radiates a kind of light.

Individuals and collectives are here to eradicate individualism.

Talk less, complain more and do more practical things.

Better said than done.

Of course, we can also find other relationships and extract corresponding arguments. Other materials are used to refine arguments: theoretical materials are transformed into concrete judgments; Cartoon materials, seize the theme and actively demonstrate; Fable materials, revealing the meaning; Combining materials, seeking common ground while reserving differences in comparison.

After putting forward the argument (that is, the central argument), the central argument should be properly decomposed into two or three sub-arguments. If the central argument is the soul and backbone of argumentative writing, then the sub-argument is the skeleton and subject of argumentative writing. It directly affects whether the thinking of the article is clear, whether the content is profound, whether the reasoning is thorough and whether the structure is reasonable, which is the key to the final success of the article. The method of decomposing the central argument is roughly as follows:

(1) Analytic Hierarchy Process. Hierarchical analysis refers to the analysis of the central argument from various angles or levels, forming two or three parallel points. For example, the central argument of "small things should be done well" can be decomposed into three sub-arguments through hierarchical analysis: ① small things are also very important; Doing small things well is the basis of doing big things well; Doing small things well is the need of society.

(2) Deep excavation method. The "depth" here means that when the central argument is decomposed, it does not stay at one level, but advances layer by layer and deepens layer by layer. For example, the central argument that "Fiona Fang cannot be achieved without rules" can be decomposed into: ① Without rules, individuals cannot become talents; 2 without rules, society is not a society; Without rules, a country is not a country.

(3) Divide before closing. Some central arguments consist of two parts, and there is a progressive relationship between them. When analyzing this central argument, we should not only pay attention to both, that is, "dividing first", but also pay attention to their progressive relationship, that is, "summing up later". Otherwise, the discussion will lead to the embarrassment of attaching importance to one and losing the other. For example, the central argument that "knowledge is more important than ability" can be decomposed into: ① knowledge is a hotbed of ability, so we should pay attention to it; ② Ability is the sublimation of knowledge integration, which should be paid more attention to; ③ Interaction between knowledge and ability. Knowledge can enhance people's ability, and ability can make people acquire knowledge more quickly.

(4) There are two methods. The "split into two" here is to look at the problem dialectically, see this side of things and see the other side of things. For example, the argument that "small is not small" can be decomposed into: ① "small" will become "big" when piled up; 2 "big" leaves "small" and does not exist; ③ "small" and "big" are relative; ④ "small" and "big" can be transformed into each other under certain conditions.

(5) Positive and negative control method. "Positive" refers to reasoning from the front, and "negative" refers to the situation or result that cannot be "positive". For example, the central argument that "everyone should obey the traffic rules" can be divided into two sub-arguments: "obeying the traffic rules is of great significance" (positive) and "not obeying the traffic rules will bring great harm" (negative).

There are many ways to decompose the central argument, so I won't go into details.

2. Use arguments sparingly and analyze them with all your strength.

In an argumentative essay with as few as 500 to 600 words and as many as 700 to 800 words, the only way to make a truth more thorough is to use a carefully selected argument and cut it into pieces to serve the argument. How to cut? Here is an example given by a famous professor. He said that the full text of the topic "Worrying about the world first" can only use the story of Marshal Peng as an argument. The central argument is broken down into three sub-arguments: ① If the world is not worried, I am worried. For example, Peng was worried about disaster at the beginning of the Great Leap Forward in 1958. (2) Worrying first is not a prophet, but before learning and investigation. Peng, for example, can seriously study Marxism-Leninism and go to all parts of the country to do research. Those who worry first must also lead the masses in their struggle. For example, Peng, not afraid of losing his official position, said tens of thousands of words at the Lushan meeting and spoke very loudly.

In essence, an argument is to analyze an argument, that is, to reveal some truth contained in the above argument and communicate with it, thus showing the essential relationship between arguments. How to analyze it? Please look at the first part of changing our study. There are seven sentences in this part. The first sentence is argumentation, and the semantic focus is on the word "increasingly combined". The second sentence is a factual argument. By comparing and analyzing the superficial and poor understanding of Marxism in the Party's childhood with the profound and rich understanding now, it effectively demonstrates the "increasing integration". Three to six sentences are historical facts, and through the analysis of the three periods, the "increasing integration" is further demonstrated. The seventh sentence is a summary of two to six sentences, giving a general evaluation and indicating the author's attitude. Because the argument is analytical, the argument and the argument are naturally integrated and have strong persuasiveness. In addition to the above analysis of the process, we can also analyze essence, causality, hypothesis analysis and extension analysis ... In short, there are many analysis methods.

3. Familiar with the structural model of argumentative writing

The structure of the argumentative essay is roughly shown in the following figure:

(attached {Figure})

The structure of "writing without fixed method" can be changed according to actual needs.