Argumentative writing, also called argumentative writing, is a style of analyzing things, discussing things, expressing opinions and putting forward opinions. What are the skills and methods of argumentative writing? The following are collected articles about argumentative writing skills, argumentative writing skills and routines. Welcome to reading.
The structure of the argumentative paper fits the argumentative paper, analyzes the facts and demonstrates the truth, of course, it must follow certain thinking rules; This law of thinking is reflected in the external form of the article, which is the article structure with a certain style. How to write an argumentative essay is "in tune"?
First, according to the general thinking mode of discussing problems, it should be composed of three parts: asking questions, analyzing problems and solving problems (or introduction, theory and conclusion).
"Asking questions" means to clearly put forward the central argument at the beginning of an argumentative paper, "analyzing questions" means to analyze and demonstrate the central argument in the middle of the article, and "solving problems" means to draw a comprehensive conclusion or forward-looking hope at the end of the article. Everyone knows this, and I won't repeat it here.
The second is to analyze the problem, that is, the part of this theory, which should be discussed in layers according to a certain dimension. The so-called "dimension" is the direction of discussion. There are four dimensions: what, why, how and what.
Under normal circumstances, a middle school student's argumentative essay can be expanded by choosing one or two of these four dimensions. But no matter which direction you look at it, there must be some connection between its arguments. Generally speaking, there are three types: parallel type, progressive type and contrast type.
The so-called juxtaposition is to list several arguments from the same direction around the center and demonstrate them one by one. If you only write around one dimension, the relationship between several sub-arguments is mostly parallel.
Compared with the parallel structure, the progressive structure is the same except for the different meaning connection between arguments, so I won't talk about it any more.
The so-called contrast is to start from the positive and negative aspects of the topic, make positive and negative comparative arguments, and draw a conclusion. Its advantages are simple structure, sufficient demonstration and convenient use.
The simplest contrast is that after putting forward the viewpoint, one section demonstrates the viewpoint from the positive side, the other section demonstrates the viewpoint from the negative side, and finally draws a conclusion. Another comparative structure is to discuss or put forward arguments from the front, and then discuss them from the opposite side through turning points or assumptions.