Papers Category:Education Papers
- Disciplinary Education Papers
Post Time:2010-11-23 15:43:00
Abstract: In recent years a large number of college entrance examination on Argumentative research and analysis, found that many college entrance there is proof enough argumentative tight, dry and other ills discussion. These defects seriously affect the argumentative essay score. Talk about the ills of this specific performance of the "cause", and discusses the symptomatic therapy.
Keywords: argumentation; the color; techniques
I have a lot in recent years, the college entrance examination under the argumentative research and analysis, found that many college entrance there is proof enough argumentative tight, dry and other ills discussion. These shortcomings seriously affected the scores of argumentative writing. Here we talk about these ills to the specific performance, analyze the "causes", and then explore the "therapy."
More rigorous proof is not shown in the following three aspects: First, imprecise language argument.
Some candidates demonstrated a lack of scientific language, accuracy. For example, in the argument, "working to make progress" when a student wrote: "Labour is that everyone must participate." Say is inaccurate, child care, the patient can not participate do not have to work, if changed to "labor is capable of work, each person must participate in the" to close out. like this casual, less scientific language, destruction of the entire argumentative rigor. Second, the argumentation is not tight.
Demonstrated when the number of candidates sweeping love to point probable surface. For example, a student of the "learning driven by the desire for success" to demonstrate this argument, merely held their own at the same table wanted to test a hundred points to an example of hard study to winding down. such flimsy arguments, gives a point of feeling almost plane, demonstrates the process closely enough. If you could give some celebrities want to succeed, and strive to learn examples, will become well-argued, persuasive; If you could give me some because there is no power, who qualified a good example of not learning from the opposite argument, the argument would appear to be more closely the process. Third, the argument can not prove that point service.
Specific performance can not fully illustrate the argument, or arguments with little connection between the argument. But also to the above "work to make progress," the argument for some students to make a monkey with labor become more and more clever examples to illustrate, this argument is clearly not sufficient to prove that point. There are students in the argument by quoting the famous aphorism has nothing to do with the argument that these famous aphorism can prove? result of these discussions are Man argument closely enough. Argumentative discussion is withered dry, like papers, reading is not the slightest interest at all.
The reasons for this phenomenon have three points: First language pale.
Some of the students master the language itself is not strong, vocabulary accumulation is not enough, write vivid wonderful sentence. For example, some students will write "labor makes progress," which is a big vernacular, and excellent candidates will be able to write, "Labor as a dynamic hand, promoting human progress in virtually" so wonderful, vivid, vivid sentences. Links to free paper download http://eng.
hi138.comsecond argument stale old-fashioned.
Arguments demonstrate the view are numerous other arguments, such as what "makes sense of life and struggle," and the like both the old and big and empty arguments, the first argument in any case, the old can not make the article look vivid, and then a little, big and empty, no matter how the argument to argument, will become a bunch of slogans written in the accumulation of reading is boring, boring . Third, the single argument method.
The most common example is used throughout the whole argument or reasoning argument, is not flexible enough, people seem rigid and tasteless. This is mainly to write argumentative candidates too little exercise, not skilled in using a variety of proof methods caused .
So, how do to make argumentative both tight and wonderful it?
The argument closely to achieve the following three points: First, we must temper the language carefully, word for word refined to ensure that language scientific, rigorous, makes perfect. The second is to demonstrate the process of rigorous and full of logical, seamless. Write before you would like to think the arguments in the argument, you should go to demonstrate in several ways, the arguments can be discussed thoroughly and complete. and then use a variety of arguments to "exhaustive" to demonstrate to the point. For example, someone wrote <<hope is a source of strength>> a text, from the "rich life because of hope," "those who want to make Pinbo more motivated," "I hope that will move forward on their own future with confidence" and many other aspects of feasibility studies, complete to the point were demonstrated. The third is to select the appropriate arguments. chosen to illustrate the argument to be able to service. If the argument is true, but also try to use new and some of the arguments. arguments not only have a positive argument, but also necessary Select some negative arguments.
Wonderful to do for the following three arguments: First, words and sentences usually have to practice more, practice writing vivid, expressive statements. Does not affect the argument in the case of rigor, to more use of rhetoric, was named a vivid demonstration language , wonderful. language style can be gentle and moving, can be humorous. The second is to demonstrate a variety of magical way to make the process of argumentation has become rich together. Third, the argument to new. and some college entrance examination paper is to provide a good argument, In that case need to focus on methods and arguments from the proof of the language to work hard. to do the above points, we will be able to write argumentative both a tight and exciting. Links to free paper download http://eng.