1. Argument methods in ancient Chinese

Argument methods in ancient Chinese:

1. Deductive argument;

2. Inductive argument (examples) Argument);

3. Comparative argument (analogy argument, contrastive argument);

4. Metaphorical argument.

Differences:

1. Deductive argument is a method of argumentation from general to specific. It proceeds from general principles to derive conclusions about individual cases, and the connection between the premises and the conclusion is necessary.

Deduction has many forms, such as syllogism, hypothetical reasoning, disjunctive reasoning, etc., but the most important one is syllogism. A syllogism consists of three parts: major premise, minor premise and conclusion. For example, the major premise "all metals can conduct electricity", the minor premise "iron is a metal", and the conclusion "so iron can conduct electricity".

2. Inductive argumentation is a method of argumentation from individual to general. It uses many individual examples or sub-arguments, and then summarizes their unique characteristics to draw a general conclusion.

In the induction method, you can first give examples and then draw conclusions, or you can first put forward conclusions and then prove them with examples. The former is what we usually call the induction method, and the latter is what we call the illustration method. The illustration method is an argumentation method that uses individual and typical concrete examples to prove the argument.

3. Comparative argumentation is a method of argumentation from individual to individual. It is usually divided into two categories: one is the analogy method and the other is the contrast method.

4. Metaphorical argumentation is to use metaphors as arguments, using the metaphorical person’s principles to demonstrate the metaphorical person’s (topic) principles. In metaphorical arguments, the metaphorizer is a set of image examples, which contain certain relationships and truths, while the metaphoree is an abstract truth.

Although the metaphorical person and the metaphorical person are two different types of things, there is a same general principle between them, so there is an inferential relationship between them. Metaphorical argument is an argument method that uses the metaphorical person as an argument to prove the metaphorical person (topic).

Extended information:

Factual argumentation uses real, reliable and representative examples to prove the argument, concretely and powerfully prove the central argument, and enhance the persuasiveness, interest and authority of the article. , making the article easy to understand.

Logical arguments can enhance the persuasiveness or literary grace of an article, making the argument more powerful or attractive.

Comparative arguments make the right and wrong clear and the merits clear, which is impressive and makes the argument more powerful or attractive.

Metaphors and arguments are easy to understand, and the language is vivid and vivid, making it easy for people to accept.

Baidu Encyclopedia - Overview 2. What are the methods of discussion and argumentation in classical Chinese?

Argumentation methods include: argumentation and refutation

Argumentation methods include: examples Argument, logical argument, comparative argument, metaphorical argument, citation argument

1. Demonstration with examples: List conclusive, sufficient and representative examples to prove the argument;

2. Logical argument: Use incisive insights from Marxist-Leninist classics, famous aphorisms from ancient and modern Chinese and foreign celebrities, and recognized theorems and formulas to prove arguments;

3. Comparative argument: Compare the positive and negative arguments or arguments. , prove the argument through comparison;

4. Metaphorical argument: Use familiar things as metaphors to prove the argument. In addition, in the refutation, the refutation method of "using Zi's spear and attacking Zi's shield" and "reductio ad absurdum" are often used. It is often used comprehensively in most argumentative papers.

5. Citation argument: Citation argument is more complicated, which is related to the specific citation materials. There are various situations such as quoting famous quotes, aphorisms, authoritative data, anecdotes of celebrities, jokes and anecdotes. Its function is to Specific analysis. For example, quoting celebrity quotes, aphorisms, and authoritative data can enhance the persuasiveness and authority of the argument; quoting celebrity anecdotes and anecdotes can enhance the interest of the argument and attract readers to read on.

3. Argument methods in ancient texts

1: Inductive argument (argument by illustration) 2: Deductive argument 3: Comparative argument (argument by analogy, comparative argument) 4: Metaphorical argument 1: Inductive argument (argument by illustration) Induction Argument is a method of argumentation from individual to general.

It uses many individual examples or sub-arguments, and then summarizes their unique characteristics to draw a general conclusion. The induction method can first give examples and then draw conclusions, or it can first put forward conclusions and then prove them with examples.

The former is what we usually call the induction method, and the latter is what we call the illustration method. The illustration method is an argumentation method that uses individual and typical concrete examples to prove the argument.

2: Deductive argument Deductive argument is a method of argumentation from general to specific. It proceeds from general principles to derive conclusions about individual cases, and the connection between the premises and the conclusion is necessary.

Deduction has many forms, such as syllogism, hypothetical reasoning, disjunctive reasoning, etc., but the most important one is syllogism. A syllogism consists of three parts: major premise, minor premise and conclusion.

For example, the major premise "all metals can conduct electricity", the minor premise "iron is a metal", and the conclusion "so iron can conduct electricity". 3: Comparative argument (analogy argument, contrastive argument theory) Comparative argument is a method of argumentation from individual to individual.

It is usually divided into two categories: one is the analogy method and the other is the contrast method. 1. Argument by analogy.

The analogy argument is based on the similarity or similarity between two objects in certain attributes, and infers that the two objects are also the same or similar in other attributes. Its logical form is: A has a, b, c, d attributes, B has the attributes of a, b, and c, so B may have the attributes of d, which belongs to inductive reasoning in formal logic. Argument by analogy is a type of probabilistic reasoning, which is a way of reasoning from particular to particular, from individual to individual. Its conclusion may not necessarily be true, but only has a certain degree of reliability.

In some cases, more precise arguments are sometimes not available. Using analogies to argue is sometimes effective.

The analogy method is enlightening. It explains the profound things in simple terms, making it easy for readers to understand abstract principles and making the article concise and vivid. When using this method, it should be noted that the analog objects should have the same or similar attributes to prevent the problems of mechanical analogy.

Since the premise used for analogy is a special thing, the conclusion of analogical reasoning is probable. When discussing complex issues, it will be insufficient to use analogy to reason. The analogy argument has a certain philosophical basis, because the world is diverse yet unified.

From the perspective of the way of thinking, analogy argumentation is not limited to the superficial differences of things, but connects different things to examine, and attempts to seek common ground in differences. It contains elements of dialectics and plays a vital role in understanding the objective world. The process has its own significance. Although the conclusions of many analogies are not necessarily true, they can be used as hypotheses for further research. However, as a method of argumentation, since it is a kind of probabilistic reasoning, its conclusion is not completely reliable, so "possible" is often used in expressions; in addition, even a basically correct analogy conclusion also contains certain fallacies. .

Generally speaking, the reliability of analogical reasoning depends on the connection between the actual attributes and the inferred attributes. If there is a close connection between ***'s attributes and the inferred attributes, the reliability of the conclusion will be greater; if the connection is low, the reliability of the conclusion will be low; if they are irrelevant, the analogy cannot be made.

When using analogy arguments, you should pay attention to the following points: (1) Use similar objects for analogy. There are infinitely many things in the world that have the same or similar attributes, and some are simply unrelated. Analogies between them are unconvincing.

(2) Avoid using analogy as an argument alone. It is best to use it in conjunction with other argumentative methods to supplement and enrich it.

(3) Pay attention to the reliability of the conclusion. Unless certain circumstances are certain, the conclusion is generally just a possibility.

Be careful in your expression and do not make it absolute. 2. Comparative argument.

Contrastive argument is a way of thinking that seeks differentiation, which focuses on revealing the essence of the argument that needs to be demonstrated through the comparison of opposite or different attributes of things. The comparative argument method has a wide range of application, because there are many things that can be compared, such as China and foreign countries, ancient and modern, large and small, strong and weak, etc., which are all suitable for comparison. In the comparison, the differences between the two are analyzed and clarified. After the differences can be opposed, right and wrong are clear, and the argument can naturally be established.

Comparison can be a comparison between two objects, or a comparison between different stages before and after the same object itself. The former is called a horizontal comparison, and the latter is called a vertical comparison. The argumentation method using vertical comparison cannot stay at the level of static judgment of formal logic, otherwise, it sometimes appears not convincing enough.

There are several issues to pay attention to when using comparative arguments: First, the two sides of the comparison must be comparable. Second, a reasonable frame of reference must be established.

To make a comparison, you must have a reasonably identical frame of reference. Without a identical frame of reference, the two cannot be compared. The so-called reference system refers to the standard used to measure and determine the merits and demerits of both parties. Such standards must be objective, otherwise the conclusion of the comparison may not be reliable.

4: Metaphorical argument Metaphorical argument is to use metaphors as arguments, using the metaphorical person’s principles to demonstrate the metaphorical person’s (topic) principles. In metaphorical arguments, the metaphorizer is a set of image examples, which contain certain relationships and truths, while the metaphoree is an abstract truth.

Although the metaphorical person and the metaphorical person are two different types of things, there is a same general principle between them, so there is an inferential relationship between them. Metaphorical argument is an argument method that uses the metaphorical person as an argument to prove the metaphorical person (topic).

There are several issues that need to be paid attention to when using metaphors for argumentation: First, the things used as metaphors should be familiar, concrete, and simple to everyone, so that they can explain another topic both popularly and vividly. a thing. Second, the metaphor should be appropriate and natural, and should be able to properly explain the characteristics of the thing being demonstrated.

Teachers can be compared to candles and spring silkworms, indicating that they selflessly give everything they have, but they cannot be compared to people who can make others clean, but they themselves are like increasingly dirty rags. Broom, this use of metaphor is called "metaphorical nonsense". Third, any metaphor is flawed because the two sides of the metaphor lack essential internal connections.

To fully and profoundly discuss an issue, we cannot rely on just a few metaphors, but should combine them with examples. 4. The argumentation methods in classical Chinese include induction, deduction and comparison (also divided into analogy and contrast

(1) Induction: This is a method of argumentation from the individual to the general. It is divided into complete Induction and incomplete induction. Generally, incomplete induction is used, and complete induction is rarely used, such as in the article "Carrying forward the great entrepreneurial spirit". The induction method can be divided into two types according to the order of examples: first, examples, and then induction. Draw conclusions and then give examples. The latter is called "exemplification method" (2) Deductive method: This is a method of argumentation from general to specific. In terms of form, it has the following types: Syllogism, hypothetical reasoning, disjunctive reasoning, etc. are mainly syllogisms. A syllogism is an evolutionary deductive reasoning that derives a conclusion from two premises connected with the same concept. It consists of three parts: a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. , The minor premise can sometimes be one item.

(3) Comparison method: This is a method of argumentation from individual to individual. It is usually divided into two categories, one is the analogy method and the other is the contrast method. . The former compares different things with the same or similar properties and characteristics in some aspects, and then draws conclusions, such as "On "Fairy Play" should be slowed down". The latter uses the properties and characteristics to be opposite or opposite in some aspects. Comparison between different things to prove the argument, such as "Theory of Clique".

I hope it can help you 5. Classical Chinese Reading Comprehension (4) (1) Gu Yue’s Miaoyu Gu Yue was the same age as Jian Wen, but his hair was prematurely gray. Jian Wen

(1) ) Gu Yue's wonderful metaphor is that Gu Yue and Jian Wen were the same age, and they turned gray prematurely. Jian Wen said: "Why did you turn gray early?" He replied: "The posture of the willows will fall in the autumn; the posture of the pines and cypresses will become more lush after frost." ” 1. The idiom from this article is: The frost is as strong as the frost. It means: Although it has been tempered by the years, its will is stronger. (2) Whenever something happens, the singer will often say: "I can't do it." This is What a big mistake. If you can do it, you will be able to do it. If you can't do it, how can you be able to do it? Also, when doing something, you often say: "Let's wait for tomorrow." This is also a big mistake. Whatever you have to do, do it. If you just follow the rules blindly, you will make a lifelong mistake. Mr. Jia Hetan has the most wonderful "Tomorrow Song", which is appended here. : "Tomorrow comes tomorrow, there are so many tomorrows, I live to wait for tomorrow, everything will be wasted! If the world is tired of tomorrow, spring will pass and autumn will come, and the old will come. In the morning, you can see the water flowing eastward, and in the evening, you can see the sun falling in the west. How many tomorrows can there be in a hundred years? Listen to my "Song of Tomorrow"." 1. This article is a typical argumentative essay that discusses one thing at a time. The article puts forward the point of view (How many tomorrows can there be in a hundred years?) in view of the phenomenon of young people shrinking back and procrastinating when faced with troubles, and then Use "Tomorrow's Song" to make a (conjecture) argument (fill in the argument method) 2. What do you think the article wants to warn us? Answer: Years are wasted, time flies by. Youthful years pass by in a flash. Please cherish your youth and don’t wait for the boss to sigh in vain! (3) Tao Kan cherished the grain. When Tao Kan was traveling, he saw someone holding a handful of unripe rice, and he asked: "What do you use this for?" The person said: "What you see when you are traveling, you can talk about it." Kan said angrily: "You are already here. If you don't have the fields, you will steal the rice!" Hold on and whip it. This is because the people are diligent in farming, and the family has enough money. 1. Translate the following sentence: The people are diligent in farming. Translation: Because of this, the people are (more) hardworking Treat agriculture properly. ( ) indicates the addition of sentence elements based on the context. 2. What is the author’s attitude towards Tao Kan? What characteristics of Tao Kan does this article show? Answer: The author of this article has a praising attitude towards Tao Kan. This article shows Tao Kan’s character traits of cherishing the fruits of labor and regarding waste as a crime.