1. Example method: referred to as the example method, the argument is proved by citing conclusive, sufficient, and representative examples. Its effect is that "facts speak louder than words" and is very persuasive. (Using this method, it is generally divided into arguments first and then the conclusion, that is, to put forward the topic straight to the point, and then use materials to prove the argument layer by layer around the topic, and finally summarize the conclusion. This structured method is more in line with the laws of people's thinking and understanding. Use facts The facts enumerated in the argument can be in two forms, namely summarizing the overall facts and enumerating individual facts. The persuasiveness of summarizing the overall facts lies in the universality embodied by the facts, which is the overall or global comprehensiveness of the facts. Statistics or generalizations. The method of argumentation is to enumerate individual examples. It does not require comprehensiveness. It only needs to enumerate a few examples to be typical. At the same time, economic principles must be taken into consideration and there should be no homogeneity as much as possible. Repeat. )

2. Reasoning method: use incisive insights from Marxist-Leninist classics, famous sayings from ancient and modern Chinese and foreign celebrities, and generally accepted theorems and formulas to prove arguments. The principles used as arguments should be tested in practice and have strong persuasiveness.

3. Quotation argumentation method: One type of argumentation is to quote famous quotes from famous people as arguments, to analyze problems and explain the truth by quoting classics. It can enrich the content of the article and enhance its foundation; fully prove the point of view and enhance the persuasiveness; show the author's cultivation and accumulation (there are two ways to quote: one is to quote clearly, explaining who said the quoted words, or explaining its source, One is implicit quoting, which means not explaining who said the quoted words or the source. The citation method is changeable and very flexible).

4. Comparative argument method: Compare the positive and negative arguments or arguments, and prove the argument through the comparison. Contrast focuses on revealing the differences between things. Its function is to enhance the distinctiveness of the argument and leave a deep impression on people.

5. Pros and cons argumentation method: It is a kind of contrastive argument. It requires that arguments be put forward first, and then the arguments are made, or the arguments are made first and then the arguments are made. The argument is clear and powerful. For example, in the article "Doubt and Knowledge", when discussing how to treat books and knowledge correctly, we must be reasonable and first state positively, "No matter which book we deal with... is our own knowledge," and then say negatively, "Otherwise, it is blind obedience and superstition. ".

6. Argument by analogy: It is to compare different things whose properties and characteristics are the same or similar in some aspects, and to infer based on the similarities in certain characteristics that they may be similar in other characteristics to draw conclusions. method. Analogy focuses on showing the consistency between things. Its logical form is: A has the attributes of a, b, c, and d, and B has the attributes of a, b, and c. Therefore, B may have the attribute of d, which belongs to inductive reasoning in formal logic. For example, 'light' and 'sound' both propagate in straight lines, with reflection, refraction, interference and other phenomena. Since 'sound' is in a wave state, it is deduced that 'light' is also in a wave state.

7. Metaphoric argument is an argument method that uses concrete, vivid, and vivid things as metaphors to prove more abstract truths. Just use metaphors to make sense. Its function is to make the truth more understandable and easier for people to accept; it also makes the discussion vivid and contagious. A typical example is paragraph 8 of "Using Doctrine".

Some argumentative essays use fables or myths as metaphors to demonstrate their arguments. Because although fables and myths are both fictional, they are essentially people's generalizations of social phenomena and reflect the truth of life to a certain extent. Invoking these metaphors can enhance your argument. For example, the metaphor of Yu Old Man Moving Mountains can be used as a metaphor to rely on the masses and persevere to achieve success.

The difference between the two is that: analogical arguments are generally based on comparisons of the same kind, and whether the reasoning conclusions are correct has yet to be proven in practice; while metaphorical arguments must be based on similarities between things of different natures, and are straightforward and easy to understand. Prove it again.

8. The reductio ad absurdum argument adopts the method of refutation of "attacking the other's shield with his spear" and first assumes that the opponent's argument is correct, and then extends it logically to reach an absurd conclusion. A way to prove the fallacy of the opponent's argument. Also called ‘evidence by contradiction’. For example, some people like to follow the fashion and think that "everything that is popular is good" and "the cold is also popular, so that is also good", which reveals the absurdity of their arguments. Another example is that due to concepts, some people are blindly xenophobic and think that foreign things are not good, so they can use "foreign things are not good, but foreigners also invented electric lights, so should we abolish electric lamps and continue to light oil lamps?" " reveals the absurdity of his argument.

9. Hypothesis argumentation: It is a method of fact inference. Hypothesis should be put forward based on certain facts. It can be a theory by hypothetical explanation of objective things and proven by practice. For example, if a book has 100,000 copies printed, assuming there is only one reader for each copy, it can have 100,000 readers.

The difference between the two is that the conclusion of the reductio ad absurdum argument is drawn by counter-evidence; the hypothesis argument is an objective logical determination based on known facts.

10. Inductive argument: also called "factual argument". It is a method of demonstrating general conclusions by citing specific examples. This is a method of argumentation from materials to viewpoints, from individual to general. It is a form of reasoning that summarizes a consistent conclusion from the analysis and research of many individual things.

11. Deductive argument: Also called "theoretical argument", it is a method of demonstrating individual cases based on general principles or conclusions. That is, using universal arguments to prove particular arguments.

12. Causal argument: It proves the argument by analyzing the facts and revealing the causal relationship between the argument and the argument. Causal arguments can use cause to prove effect, or effect to prove cause, or cause and effect to prove each other. Causes and effects have a temporal relationship, but not all phenomena with temporal relationships are causal relationships; in addition to temporal relationships, causal relationships must also meet a condition, that is, the result is caused by the action of the cause. In the argumentative style, based on the regularity of universal and inevitable causal connections between objective things, and demonstrating the results by suggesting causes, it is a causal argument.