1. Question review

Two kinds of frogs are actually two kinds of lives. So, what kind of lives are these?

Have you thought about it? Have you thought this through? Which frog seems more "intelligent" and why do both frogs die? If frogs can live, how do they live?

Reviewing the topic is the prerequisite for obtaining a clear central argument.

Reference:

1. A life of self-degradation, a life of endless struggle for what seems to be.

2. Frog A seems to be more "intelligent". It thinks "carefully" about life and the future.

The fighting spirit of B frog is commendable, but it may not consider the problem properly. Although it also has thoughts, it is not calm enough in the face of life and death, so it cannot save its own physical strength and cannot use its wisdom to fight for its own success. Living space.

3. "Wisdom" can kill people, so what kind of "wisdom" you have is very important. "Perceptual experience" is not called wisdom, rational thinking is more important.

4. Frog A is destined to die, but frog B may survive. However, real survival is to conserve physical strength, think calmly, and gain the possibility of survival through chirping or other means when people or other external objects arrive.

2. Establish the topic and argument

1. The wisdom of the frog (the outlook on life determines life, and life should have the wisdom of life and death)

2. Wisdom and survival (What does survival depend on? Maybe you don’t need wisdom to live, but to think better, you must have wisdom)

3. What comes to mind from the frog in the altar... (Open-ended question, for the argument from one aspect to another) Click here to pave the way)

4. "Fall" and "fall" ("fall" is common and is the result of natural forces; "fall" varies from person to person and is the product of personal mentality; Only by "falling" without "falling" and "falling" means "falling" can we see the connotation of human beings, so that we can add dialectics and refutation)

5. Frog and Butter Jar (Wind). What are the hidden things that are unrelated to horses and cows: excessive pursuit is to bury one's own grave)

6. Special strengths and shortcomings (the jar is very high, the frog is good at jumping, and jumping high is not about watching. If you stay far away, the toad may be much safer)

7. Frog, it’s better to eat some bugs (ordinary is true)

8. Quietness and impatience (personality determines life, character determines Success or failure)

9. Keeping a low profile and showing off one's strengths

10. The wisdom of "literary" and "military"

3. Establishing the angle of argument and topic

p>

1. The protagonist himself

2. The relationship between the protagonists

3. The supporting role that is easy to ignore

4. The relationship between the protagonist and the supporting role

5. Associations caused by the protagonist and supporting roles

6. Connection between society and life

4. Misunderstandings in this composition

1. Talking about things as they happen

This is a fatal way of writing all material compositions. Material composition is "argument based on facts" rather than "argument based on facts". Talking about the material itself cannot connect life and society.

In this essay, any essay that talks about the "frog" and the frog itself will be regarded as this type of essay, which is the most failed of all failed essays.

If the college entrance examination essay is 60 points, this kind of essay is often classified into three categories and four categories and can only score about 20 points.

2. There is no argument type.

They just talk about so-called truths without any evidence to back them up.

3. There is no argument type. I cried for a long time not knowing who died or what the final argument was.

4. There is a disconnect between arguments and arguments. Arguments do not prove arguments.

5. Childish arguments

Kindergarten examples, primary school examples, grandparents examples. There are no famous quotes, no famous examples, no persuasiveness.

6. Inconsistent narrative style (inconsistent stylistic features)

The language style is mixed, and the discussion is mixed with lyricism. The first 400 words are narrative style, and the last 400 words are argumentative. style.

7. The dominant type

I quoted a story from someone else and narrated it in about 700 words. In the end, my own text was less than 100 words.

8. The terminally ill type

Not able to segment, illegible writing, dirty paper, etc.

5. Writing guidance

1. Introduction

The "frog" material introduces opinions and lays out arguments - "calm" and "fanatic" are both Not the wisdom of life.

2. The title part

Use a few sentences to explain the connotation of the argument, which is equivalent to connecting the previous and the next

3. The main thesis part (the selection of arguments is very Important)

1. Present the facts

Xiang Yu committed suicide

Be reasonable: Xiang Yu failed and was willing to fall. Without the confidence and courage to fight, there is no wisdom in managing life.

2. Present the facts

The failure of the Great Leap Forward

Let’s be reasonable: reckless actions are doomed to failure

3. Present the facts

Madame Curie spent decades refining one gram of radium from dozens of piles of asphalt

Let’s be honest: Only by working hard with wisdom can you achieve yourself

4. Conclusion (kickback materials, anaphora arguments)

Xiang Yu is the failed frog A, the Great Leap Forward is the failed frog B, and success has nothing to do with AB.

Success is the third kind of wisdom, which is calmness, thinking and clear goals. Not pretending to be mature and calm, not being irrational and fanatical