1. Three elements of an argumentative essay

Regardless of length, an argumentative essay must have several elements: topic, argument, argument, and demonstration. These elements are closely integrated and neither one can exist without it. ***Complete the proof task together.

An argumentative essay is an article that puts forward opinions or claims on a certain object of discussion and explains the reasons to convince the reader. Its basic characteristic is the persuasiveness of argument.

The purpose of argumentative essays is to persuade readers. No matter what issues or things it discusses, no matter what opinions it expresses, what propositions it puts forward, what truths it tells, or what refutes other people's opinions, it all aims to achieve the purpose of persuading and convincing readers. If the basic feature of an expository essay is its explanatory nature, it must explain clearly to the reader what the object of explanation is, then the basic feature of an argumentative essay is its persuasiveness. In terms of the type of thinking, it must answer why, You need to tell the truth to convince the readers. Ye Shengtao said: An expository essay is considered successful if it explains clearly. However, argumentative essays are considered successful by "persuading others". ("Examples of Articles") This illustrates the basic characteristics of argumentative essays.

The argumentative essay should not only discuss the opinion on a certain object of discussion and express the author's attitude (i.e., point of view), but also explain why this opinion is proposed and why he holds this attitude. This process of explaining why is the process of proof. A complete proof must consist of several parts: thesis, argument, and argument. These parts are the elements that constitute the characteristics of an argumentative essay. Each of them has different tasks.

The topic refers to the issue raised by the author to discuss in the article and is the object of argument.

The topic does not indicate the author’s understanding of objective things. For example, where do people's correct thoughts come from? It is a hypothetical question, with no judgment or expression of judgment. It only expresses asking questions and waiting for answers. Regarding authority and the direction of the youth movement, who does our literature and art belong to? Nor is it a judgment. They all stipulate and limit the scope and focus of the article's discussion, determine the direction and approach of the discussion, and are clues that run through the content and organizational structure of the full text. The topic usually appears in the title or preface. The topic is expressed in a question, such as what is talent science. Phrases that highlight the main idea are also commonly used, such as the direction of the youth movement. The topic discussed in an article is the center of the full text. Not only the argumentative part of the argumentative essay must revolve around it, but also the non-argumentative content must obey it. It is the central clue of the full text and plays a role in unifying the full text.

An argument is also called a conclusion. In logic, an argument is a judgment whose authenticity needs to be verified. It is the author's opinions, claims and attitudes towards the issues discussed. It is the center of the entire argumentation process, responsible for answering what is being argued, and clearly indicating what the author agrees with and what he opposes.

In longer articles, arguments are divided into central arguments and sub-arguments.

The central argument is the author’s most basic view on the issue discussed. It is the most important ideological point put forward by the author in the article, and it is a high-level summary and concentration of all arguments.

Sub-arguments are a number of ideological viewpoints that are subordinate to the central argument and serve to elaborate the central argument. Each argument also needs to be demonstrated. Any sub-argument that is proven and tenable becomes a powerful argument at the center of the argument.

Arguments are the basis used to confirm an argument. In logic, they are the judgments used to determine the authenticity of a topic. In a proof, it is tasked with answering why.

Arguments, based on their own nature and characteristics, can be divided into two categories: factual arguments and theoretical arguments. Factual arguments are true descriptions and generalizations of objective things and have the character of direct reality, so they are the most convincing arguments to prove an argument. This is the saying that facts speak louder than words. Factual arguments include individual examples, general examples and figures. Theoretical arguments refer to those views that originate from practice, have been proven and tested by long-term practice, and are judged to be correct.

It includes the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, the party's lines, principles, policies in different periods, scientific definitions, rules and regulations, general axioms, common sense, idioms, proverbs, etc.

Argument is the logical process and method of using arguments to prove arguments, which refers to the logical connection between materials and ideas, such as the connection between arguments and arguments in deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning. It takes on the task of answering how to prove.

2. The argumentation structure must be strict, logical, and in compliance with the normative model

The structure of an argumentative essay refers to the organization of the ideas and materials within the article. A model argumentative essay should be tightly structured, highly logical, complete in structure, and conform to the standard pattern. The most serious and common problem when candidates write argumentative essays is the lack of awareness of the argument structure, which is often omitted and loose and lacks the strength of the argument. Most of the mid-range argumentative papers in the college entrance examination are of the opinion, example material, and contact with reality type.

The basic structure of an argumentative essay usually consists of three parts: introduction, main body, and conclusion. The requirement is that the topic or argument must be proposed at the beginning, the main part must use materials to demonstrate the argument in a hierarchical manner, and the conclusion must be summarized. This thesis is the main body of the article and is the analysis of the problem. There are the following four common structural forms:

1. Parallel structure. In the argumentation idea, for the convenience of discussion, the central argument of the article is decomposed into several parallel and juxtaposed sub-arguments, or the arguments are juxtaposed. The relationship between the several levels or paragraphs of the argument is parallel. This It's a parallel. For example, the 2004 Fujian full-score essay "Strive for Victory in Stability", after stating the central argument that people are calm and strive for victory in stability, then fully elaborated on it from three aspects:

a. Calmness comes from ambition. Come,

b. Calmness comes from difficulty,

c. Calmness comes from lack of desire.

These three sub-arguments all prove the central argument, with sufficient argumentation and clear structure.

2. Positive and negative contrasting structure. In the argument, comparing two things (or opinions), or using another thing (or opinion) to highlight a certain thing (or opinion), is a contrastive type. For example, in the essay "Public Principles Produce Ming" written by a candidate from Jiangxi Province in 2003, the essay first quoted the composition materials as negative examples, and then brought out two positive examples. In this way, the three examples are contradictory and the contrast is sharp. It is clear at a glance which one is right and which one is wrong.

3. Progressive structure. In the argumentation idea, from shallow to deep, layer by layer, advance step by step, this is the progressive structure. Its characteristic is that the order of each layer has strict requirements and cannot be changed at will. Generally speaking, argumentative papers adopt the idea of ??first raising a problem, then analyzing the problem, and then solving the problem, which reflects the characteristics of a hierarchical structure. For example, in the 2002 college entrance examination essay "Integrity is the Fundamental to Being a Human Being", the article first illustrates the phenomenon of female students rejecting advertisements, then explains the reasons for doing so, and then comments on the significance and value of the female students' behavior. This is a progressive and profound reasoning. , thus thoroughly revealing the essence of the problem.

4. Total score structure. This is the most commonly used structure method in articles. In the argumentation ideas, some say the general part first and then explain it in detail, and some say it first and then the general part, or first make the general part and then explain it separately and then the general part. This is how the total score is structured. For example, the 2001 full-scoring essay "Where Integrity Comes, Gold and Stone Are Open" quotes an ancient saying at the beginning to put forward an argument, which is an introduction. This paper first discusses the role of integrity, and then discusses the scope of application of integrity. The ending points, echoing the beginning. Summarize the full text. It is a typical one-point-one-overall structure, showing the author's high level of planning.

3. Argumentation method

The main method of writing argumentative essays is argumentation. Argument, from the perspective of formal logic, is the entire logical reasoning process of using arguments to prove arguments. This process indicates the logical method used to connect or unify arguments and arguments.

So, how are arguments and arguments connected? Or how do the arguments prove the argument? This is a question of argumentation method.

The method of argumentation is related to the form of reasoning, but it is not the same. It is diverse and can be used flexibly according to different needs. Here are some of the more commonly used ones.

1. Give examples: Giving examples is to use typical specific facts as arguments to prove an argument. This is what is commonly called presenting the facts. This is a method of making arguments using the form of inductive reasoning, which is easy to master and commonly used. When using examples to demonstrate, the most important thing is to pay attention to the consistency and close unity of the evidence and the direction of the argument, and there should be no distance.

2. Extension of facts: This method is to use known factual evidence to prove the argument. This is a method of argumentation using the form of deductive reasoning, so it is also called the deductive method. The use of factual arguments is often expressed by quoting famous aphorisms. Famous aphorisms have universally recognized truth, and using them to prove the authenticity of a specific thing is extremely convincing. When using factual arguments, especially quoting famous quotes and aphorisms to make arguments, you should pay attention to: A. The quoted facts and arguments truly form a close memory connection. B. Generally, some clarifications and explanations should be made for quotations. Do not just draw conclusions after quotation, so as not to give people a superficial feeling. C Except for the need for argumentation, which requires a large number of arguments, the quotations should be as concise as possible. The author should be good at capturing the essence of the quotation.

3. Counter-evidence: As the name suggests, counter-evidence does not directly prove the argument from the front, but indirectly proves the argument from the negative side. This is a method of making an argument using a form of deductive reasoning. Let’s take a look at the following example: If we oppose seeking truth from facts, proceeding from reality, and combining theory with practice, then what kind of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought can we call it? Where does that lead us? Obviously, that can only lead us to idealism and metaphysics, to the loss of work and the failure of the revolution.

If you use the method of proof by contradiction in this passage: instead of talking about what will happen if you seek truth from facts from the front, you will prove the meaning of seeking truth from facts by talking about what will happen if you don’t seek truth from facts. In an argument, in order to prove the correctness of the argument one proposes, one must first prove that another argument that contradicts this argument is wrong, or in order to prove that the other party's argument is wrong, one must first prove that another argument that contradicts it is correct. Yes, they are all proof by contradiction.

4. Analogy: This method is to compare some identical aspects of one type of thing, and use the correctness or fallacy of another thing to prove the correctness or fallacy of this thing. This is a method of making an argument using a form of analogical reasoning. When making this kind of analogy argument, special attention should be paid to the fact that the things being compared must be of the same type and have essential similarities. For example:

Finally, let’s talk about practicing basic skills. Basic skills are very important for people who hold pens, and they will not work without practice. As the saying goes: The fist never leaves the hand, and the music never leaves the mouth. Those who paint often paint, and those who sing often sing. But how can those who write write not write for several months?

Here, writing, painting, and singing can be compared, because these all belong to the scope of literary and artistic creation and have the same essential attributes.

5. Contrast: Contrast is to compare two completely opposite situations in the argument. Because the two sides of the comparison form a sharp contrast and set off each other, this method can particularly highlight the properties of one aspect and has strong argumentative power. Therefore, it is also widely used. There are two situations of comparison: one is the horizontal ratio and the other is the vertical ratio. A horizontal ratio is a comparison of two things with completely different properties in the same period. Vertical ratio is to compare different situations of the same thing at different times. For example, when some articles now discuss the correctness of a certain economic policy, they often talk about the production situation of a region, a unit, and the changes in people's lives in the past and present, using this comparative method.

6. Mutual proof of cause and effect: This is an argumentation method that proves arguments by analyzing events and revealing the causal relationship between arguments and arguments. It can use the cause to prove the result as an argument; the necessity of the cause proves the necessity of the result.

7. Metaphor: The method of using metaphor to illustrate a truth can be called metaphor.

This is a method of making arguments using the form of analogical reasoning. Metaphors are clever and logical, and just the right metaphor can often help clarify the truth. Therefore, this method is also widely used in argumentation.

8. Reductio ad absurdum: Reductio ad absurdum means leading to a fallacy. This method is to first assume that the other party's argument is correct, and then use it as a premise to derive an obviously absurd conclusion, thereby proving that the other party's argument is wrong. This method is only used to refute false ideas.

The above lists several main and commonly used argumentation methods. Among them, except for the reductio ad absurdum method, which is specially used for refutation articles, the other methods are applicable to both argumentation and refutation articles.

As a reflection of the form of human thinking activities, the argumentation method is not difficult to grasp. Sometimes, we find it difficult not only because the relevant knowledge introduced in books is too fragmented and abstract, but also because learning is divorced from practice. When combined with reality, any theory or knowledge is easy to understand and grasp. The same goes for mastering the method of argumentation. As long as we connect the study of this knowledge with our daily cognitive activities, learn from excellent articles in newspapers and periodicals, and insist on practicing writing, we will definitely be able to use these methods skillfully.

4. The language of argumentative essays: accurate, clear, summarized, and logically strong

Different styles determine the difference in language. The language of argumentative essays must be accurate, clear, summarized, vivid and logical. 1. Accurate. Argumentative essays generally use logical reasoning to clarify facts and opinions. They need to have a certain degree of generality and strict logic. When choosing words, they must be accurate. 2. Distinctive. First, the argument should be expressed clearly, and second, love and hate should be clear, and bright emotional colors should run through the writing. 3. Generalization. The stronger the generality of the language, the greater the universal significance of the truth it explains. 4. Strict logic. Accurate judgment, rigorous reasoning, and strong logic are the essential characteristics of argumentative language.