PapersAnswering skillsAnd methodology
The papers are a form of analysis, commentary and expression of views, positions, attitudes, views and claims on an issue or something. Here's the answer technique and method for the paper. Let's see!
Answering techniques and methods
1. Arguments (what to prove)
The argument should be a complete statement of the author's view and a complete, concise and clear sentence in form. From the full text, it must be able to capture the full text. It is often expressed in the form of an affirmative or negative sentence, which is a clear statement。
A. The arguments of the article. There's only one central argument
(1) clarity: the split arguments can be multiple (effects: complementary and probative central arguments)
(2) methodology:
1 from above: e. G. Title, opening, middle, end。
2 analysis of the arguments in the article. (to be used to test the appropriateness of the envisaged argument)
3 excerpt method (separate arguments only, without focus)
B. How the analytical arguments are presented:
(a) the point of conclusion after factual justification;
2 to present the central argument;
3 to present the subject of the existence of the phenomenon in life and, by way of analysis, the central argument;
A description of a section of the author's experience with the lake, which leads to a central argument;
The authors ask questions from the story, then analyse the inferences step by step and conclude with a central argument。
2. Arguments (with what evidence)
(1) type of argument:
1 factual arguments (examples to be summed up and general arguments to be focused);
2 explanatory arguments (citation for analysis)。
(2) the arguments need to be true and reliable, typical (disciplinary, country, historical, etc.)。
(3) order (justification);
(4) to determine whether the argument is probative;
(5) additional arguments (to prove them)
3. Arguments (how to prove)
(1)Validation method(to be four words)
1 example (exemplary method)
2 rationale (citation and justification)
3 comparative argument (which in itself may also be illustrative and reasoned)
4-fiction justification metaphor (in the notes, by analogy)
(2) analytical validation process:
How the 1st argument was presented;
(b) how the arguments were proved (what justifications and facts were used and whether there were analytical arguments on both sides);
3 in relation to the structure of the full text, if any。
(3) integrity of the case (response: to make the case more comprehensive and avoid misunderstanding)
(4) the role of analytical reasoning: to support the argument in the paragraph。
4. Structure of the papers
(1) general form:
1 introduction (questions raised)
2 thesis (analysis issues)
Conclusion (problems)。
(2) type:
1 parallel
Total 2 points total
Total 3-point
4-minute total
5 progressive
5. Language of papers
(1) tightness (compelling, restrictive use of language);
(2) vivid (formation, use of various methods of speech);
(3) serialization (as judged by life logic and context);
(4) order (use of associated terms, with particular attention to progressive relationships)。
6. Reading of dissuasive papers
(1) what is the wrong view to be refuted by the author?
(2) how the author contested, using those arguments and arguments;
(3) what is the correct view set by the author?
7. Common considerations
(1) consideration of the arguments in the paper:
First, the distinction between the issues under discussion and the views expressed by the authors on the issue (i. E. Between topics and arguments). I'm not sure
Secondly, note the position of the argument in the text:
1 at the beginning of the article, this is what is called the opening words and the opening words。
2 at the end of the article, the so-called summary text, the end of the article, reveals the centre's writing. This formulation is mostly used to express arguments clearly. So, in sum, therefore, in the final analysis, the words are summed up。
Third, to distinguish between the central and the divided arguments: the dichotomy is generally located at the beginning of the paragraph or in a landmark term: first, second, third。
Fourth, attention should be paid to the presentation of the argument: sometimes the title is the central one. There is only one central argument for a paper。
Fifthly, the argument is countered by argument: the argument is at the service of the argument, and the analytical argument shows what it proves, what it affirms and what it supports。
(2) consider the arguments in the dissertation: the arguments are the arguments on which they are based and are generally all factual and reasonable。
1 arguments based on facts. The case must be reliable, typical, revealing the essence of the thing and having some logical connection to the argument. In the papers, the examples presented should be described in a concise manner, highlighting those parts that are directly relevant to the argument. In clarifying arguments, it is important not only to know where factual arguments are used, but also to summarize them. In general, to be accurate, arguments must be based on arguments that capture the essence of the argument and are then expressed in precise language。
The statements used as arguments should have some authority and be reproduced in their original language in direct reference, so as to be true and not taken out of context; indirect references should not distort the original intent。
(3) structure, level of consideration of the papers: the structure is: a parallel structure, a contrast structure, a layer structure, a total score structure。
The basic form of this point: how does the author prove it?
Answer: in order to prove the point, the author first used the arguments and then analysed the arguments, thus proving the point. It is crucial to state clearly the hierarchy of the process。
(4) a methodological perspective of the paper:
The reasoning method refers to the process and method by which the argument is used to prove the argument, and it is the link of the logical relationship between the argument and the argument, with the following four elements in the medium test:
1 evidentiary: it is a way to prove the argument by citing well-founded, adequate and representative examples. Because “facts speak louder than words”, it is possible to add to the opinio juris by citing well-established and typical facts。
Evidentiary argument: it is a `method that invokes an authoritative statement to support the argument. So it's used properly and it's very persuasive. An analysis of the effects of the citation law should begin by identifying who had been quoted in order to prove what and then grasp the special role of the citation law — authoritative and strong。
3 paradigms: this is the way to prove the argument through image metaphors. Such an approach, which can be profoundly and superficially popular, is easy to accept。
Comparative argument: the method by which the argument is supported by a sharp contrast between the facts and the reasoning of both sides. The analytical comparison of methodological work makes it more clear that it is right and wrong and that the correct view is more acceptable to the reader。
The answer is:
(1) reasonable arguments, adding authority to the arguments。
(2) the factual arguments, from which point of view they are supported。
(3) paradigm reasoning, or graphic proof of ... Or in-depth evidence of ... (to be determined by the relationship between the body and the metaphor)。
(4) compared with the reasoning, the two aspects make them clearer in terms of right and wrong and more acceptable to the reader。
(5) the linguistic dimension of the paper:
Language characteristics of analytical papers:
1 to analyse the accuracy and rigour of their terms from a logical perspective;
An analysis of the generality and brevity of their narratives from the point of view of reason;
It is necessary to analyse the distinctive, vivid and emotional nature of its terms from a rhetorical point of view。
The following is an explanation from different angles:
The exact language is:
1. Accurate use of concepts;
Two qualifiers are appropriate。
The language is well-articulated and reasoned, well-expressed and logical。
Language is clear: it is clear, it is not ambiguous, it is clear, it is clear, it is odious, it is appropriate to use rhetorical methods and special sentences, and it enhances the vitality and persuasiveness of language。
The summary of the language is simple: the factual description in the paper is less detailed and more general. The purpose of the paper was to justify the paper. No detailed narratives are appropriate. Or it'll be loud and loud. This is reflected in general dissertations and no more examples are given。
