Discussion of the paper: first, to point out the substance of the error, then to refute the error already notedArguments, and to present its own correct arguments against each other at the same time or afterwards。
2.PapersIncluding argumentsArgumentsAnd validate three elements。
(1) arguments
The argument is the author's view and proposition on the issue under discussion. Formally, it is a statement of judgement. There are central arguments and arguments。
Central argument: the article's main point of view, taken together in full。
Sub-arguments: complement and validate the central arguments. The argument is based on a number of ideas that belong to the central argument and serve the central argument. The split arguments also need to be justified. Where there is a proven division of arguments, it becomes naturally a strong argument for the central argument。
(2) arguments
The central argument and the split argument need to be proved. That is, there must be sufficient facts or correct reasons to justify the argument. Such facts or reasons are called arguments. The arguments included factual and rationale arguments。
De facto arguments include factual examples, historical facts, statistics, etc。
Arguments for reason include classic writings and authoritative statements (e. G. Celebrity speeches) and the principles, norms, formulas, etc. Of the natural sciences。
(3) arguments
The usual argument refers to the method of argument. Examples, justifications, contrasts, metaphors, etc. Are common to secondary school students。
A. Example: the case-by-case approach is referred to as “factual”. The list of facts is required to be firm, adequate and representative。
B. Justification: it is also justified by the insights of the classics, famous narratives, accepted theorem formulas, theoretical analyses or statements made by authors, etc。
C. Comparative reasoning: the method by which the arguments or arguments of both sides are compared and supported in the comparison。
D. Paradigms: in a metaphoric way, the abstract, insinuated, unwieldy, incomprehensible things and rationalities will be described in more specific and shallow terms。
Ii. Compliance comprehensions
The argument is that the author's opinions and ideas on the issues in question are also central to the article's presentation and, more importantly, the soul of the paper. A discussion paper could have one or several arguments, which would require a clear definition of the central and sub-arguments. There is generally one argument at the centre, and several arguments can be divided around it. The central argument acts as a whole, supplementing the central argument and serving it。
Characteristics of arguments (i. E. Grasping the author's point of view)
(1) formally, a full sentence is a complete statement of the author's view。
(2) it is a clear judgement。
(3) there is generally no need to question the pronouns “why”, “how”, without a word, and a positive judgement — the original sentence being a negative sentence does not have to be changed。
Position of the argument
(1) title, some articles whose titles are arguments
(2) at the beginning, most often, the argument is at the beginning, either by opening the door, by submitting it directly, by quoting it, or by summarizing the example
(3) at the end of the article, some articles, using the full summary, the closing question, reveal the way in which the central argument is written, paying attention to the adjectives that are summed up, such as “so that” “in general” “so that” “at the end of the day” and “so that” “in the end”
(4) in the articles, in the articles, there is often a process for the presentation of views and, after some discussion, for the presentation of central arguments
(5) there is no clear argument, and a few papers do not contain a clear argument that needs to be distilled from the articles themselves。
Central arguments and sub-arguments: the central arguments are used to support the central arguments, which start with the full text of the generality, the effect of the generality arguments, and the sub-arguments. The argument is generally at the beginning of the paragraph or is marked by words such as “first, second, again ...”
4. The arguments were presented in terms of: (a) the factual reasoning followed by the point of conclusion; (b) the opening of the door to the central argument; (c) the presentation of the topic in relation to the phenomena that exist in life, which, by way of an analytical discussion, was the central argument; (d) the description of the author's experience, which was the central argument; and (e) the author's presentation of the question from the story, which was followed by a step-by-step analysis of the reasoning, which led to the conclusion and presentation of the central argument。
5. Common questions
(1) what is the central argument in this paper
(2) what are the main points of view expressed by the authors of this paper
(3) summarize the views discussed in paragraph xx of the article。
6. Methodology for summing up central arguments
The central arguments can be summarized as follows:
(1) the method of location: the argument is most likely to appear in the title and at the beginning of the title, so look first at the title and the beginning, and then at some transitional sentences in the end and in the text; if there is no obvious argument in the text, we are required to summarize, summarize and extract the argument from the article。
(2) expression: the presentation of arguments is often a positive or negative judgement, a statement that is correct, clear and concise. In its entirety, it must be the central sentence of the entire text, not of a paragraph。
(3) excerpts: some articles do not clearly state the key words of the central argument, and need to study in depth the main part of the article, extracting or reorganizing the text in the middle and summing up the central argument of the full text。
(4) counter-arguments: both factual and reasonable arguments serve the arguments, and the relationship between the arguments and the arguments is one of proof and proven. The analytical arguments prove what the question is, and it is a question of course。
Note: distinguishing between topics and arguments:
Topic: the phenomena, problems, facts to be discussed by the author are subject to proof. It is only the subject or object of the discussion, and there is no tendency to downplay feelings. It defines and limits the scope and focus of the articles and does not indicate their correctness。
Arguments: in the author's view, there is a clear tendency to express approval or rejection, praise or criticism, and the argument must contain the dominant word or the term。
Iii. Analysis, overview, supplementary comments according to
1. Standing examinations
(1) what is the argument and what is the effect of a particular sentence here?
(2) whether an example (linking material) or reason is appropriate to argue。
(3) analysis of the role of factual or reasonable arguments
(4) can factual arguments be summarized or converted
(5) please add a factual or reasonable argument to paragraph xx。
(6) can the examples of some parts of the selection be deleted? Please provide reasons。
(7) choose the appropriate formulation of the central argument of the selection。
2. In analysing the role of the arguments, the following steps may be taken:
(1) identify the type of arguments. First, it should be made clear whether the sentences or paragraphs listed in the title were based on arguments of fact or reason。
(2) the role of analytical arguments:
(a) de facto arguments: the “who and what” point of view is convincingly and convincingly demonstrated ...
2 empirical arguments: a strong and strong demonstration of ... The authoritative and scientific nature of the view makes the article more persuasive。
Answer format:
This is ... Argument, citing ... Examples as factual arguments (or quotations as justifications) to argue ... Points (in which case, a sub-argument of proof is written, otherwise a central argument), to enhance the persuasiveness of the argument and to make it more general and more incisive。
3. The following additional factual or justification arguments should be noted:
(1) to examine the subject and to make it clear whether it is a factual or a reasonable argument to be added。
(2) it is clear that the arguments in the article or in the paragraph are the same as the arguments in the addendum。
(3) the supplementary argument insists on “three: one is accurate, two is true and three is concise。
(4) the factual arguments must be supplemented by a typical example of a celebrity and by the ability to present his or her intellectual background; they must be supplemented by an authoritative narrative, police sentences, proverbs, proverbs, etc。
Iv. Definition of methodological methodology and role
The argument is a process of argumentation, a logical link between the argument and the argument, and directly influences the persuasiveness of the paper. In the process of using arguments to justify arguments, the appropriate reasoning is used, which makes the argument stronger and more vivid。
1. Common questions
(1) what are the main methods of argument used in the underlined sentence? What's the effect
What methods of argument are used in paragraph (2) xx? Analysis of their role in relation to specific content。
(3) what is the justification for the examples (or quotations) given in paragraph xx
(4) reconciling the xx leg from the perspective of the reasoning method。
2. Validation of methodology
(1) evidentiary argument: it is more specific and convincing by taking specific examples。
(2) rationale: proof of argument by way of reason makes it more general。
(3) paradigms: proofs by metaphors make them vivid and easy to understand。
(4) comparative reasoning: the role of comparative reasoning is to highlight it。
3. Response steps
In the first step, reading the line or entire paragraph, it was clear whether the question was whether the whole text or a particular paragraph or paragraphs, or a few words, was a question of whether or not there were several methods of argument。
The second step is to determine which (and which) methods of argument are used by using the label。
The third step is to recall the role of this (these) validation method and the response format。
