Arguments for an essay for the Unified State Examination in the Russian language by topic. Arguments in an essay-reasoning

Argumentation strategies:

The most difficult stage is selection of arguments. The construction of an argument can be based on two principles: on affirming one’s own thesis and on refuting the opponent’s thesis (the latter is easier, because the opponent takes on the work of generating new ideas, and you can only criticize his ideas).

With the confirmation strategy, a person gives arguments that confirm his thesis (we do not take the kindergarten situation, when the thesis is simply repeated many times, but without a single piece of evidence).

Direct confirmation of the thesis.

Thesis: squirrels are dangerous animals.

Argument: because they attack people.

It still happens indirect confirmation, when another position is deduced from a thesis, its truth is proven and then the truth of the first thesis is proven.

Thesis: Squirrels are dangerous animals.

Additional thesis: Bites from dangerous animals require medical supervision.

Argument: Indeed, after being bitten by a squirrel, you will have to visit the emergency room and get a rabies vaccination. This proves that squirrels are dangerous.

Refutation strategy:

direct refutation :

Counterthesis: Proteins are harmless.

Refuting the counterthesis: Squirrels spoil their habitat, i.e. they are not harmless.

It also happens indirect refutation. Then the person himself deduces certain provisions from the counterthesis (thesis of the opponent), refutes them, and thus refutes the counterthesis itself.

Counterthesis: Proteins are harmless.

Additional counterpoint:Harmless animals are kept at home.

Refutation of the counterthesis: No one keeps squirrels at home, only fans , which means that proteins are not harmless and unsafe.

Another good way to fight an opponent is refutation of arguments, which leads to the recognition of the unfoundedness of the counterthesis and to the reinforcement of the thesis.

Counterthesis: Proteins are harmless.

Argument: These are small animals compared to humans.

Refutation of the argument: Viruses are also small, but they can cause enormous harm to humans. So size doesn't matter here.

Another way to refute is refutation of the demonstration, i.e. proof that valid arguments in themselves do not involve a counterthesis.

Counterthesis: Proteins are harmless.

Argument: Squirrels are beautiful and graceful.

Demonstration rebuttal: Yes, squirrels are beautiful and graceful, but this does not affect their safety in any way. Jaguars are also beautiful and graceful, but would anyone agree to meet one-on-one with a hungry jaguar at night?

Argument types:

The arguments are divided into:

1. natural evidence: arguments to the obvious(eyewitness accounts, documents, examination data, scientific experiment - “tangible” evidence)

2. artificial evidence(other)

Artificial evidence :

- logical (arguments to logos)

There are two types logical proofs: syllogism(particularity is proved using general statements) and guidance(the general statement is proved on the basis of particulars).

This corresponds to two methods of drawing conclusions: deduction(from the general to the specific) and induction(from the particulars a conclusion about the general is drawn). Sherlock Holmes, who kept shouting about deductive method, in fact, he used inductive (from particulars he deduced the whole). Induction can fail, because from several particular facts we can draw some conclusion, and then one fact will take it and refute it (for example, we decide on the basis of observations that all pigeons are gray, and then some white scoundrel will fly in and that’s all will spoil).

Examples of syllogisms :

A syllogism usually includes two premises and a conclusion.

The premises and conclusion are propositions.

There are four types of judgments: general affirmative (all objects that have a certain property also have another property);

All people are mortal

private affirmative (some objects that have a certain property also have another property);

Some people are men

general negative(not a single object that has a certain property has another property); No man is a plant

partial negative (some objects that have a certain property do not have another property)

Some people are not children

A judgment is divided into a subject (what is said) and a predicate (what is new that is reported about the subject).

All professors (M) have an academic degree (P)(includes a conclusion predicate: major premise).

Panteley Prokofich Kryndylyabrov (S) – professor (M) (includes the subject of the conclusion: small premise).

Panteley Prokofich ( S ) has an academic degree (P).

All professors are the subject of a statement. Have an academic degree - a predicate.

Panteley Prokofich is a subject. Professor is a predicate.

Panteley Prokofich is again a subject. Has an academic degree – predicate.

There must be a coincidence of subjects and predicates, otherwise the syllogism will be meaningless (we equated the subject of the first premise with the subject of the second, after which the predicate of the first premise turned out to be a predicate for the second).

There are large (P), small ( S ) and the middle (M) member of the syllogism. The middle member acts as a mediator and does not appear in the conclusion (in our case, this is the professor). Big dick - in in this case it is “having an academic degree.” Small member - Panteley Prokofich.

Not all syllogisms are equally correct (not all yoghurts are equally healthy).

The conscious construction of an incorrect syllogism results in sophistry (“People eat bread.Pigs eat bread.Therefore, people are pigs."). There are syllogisms in which the error was made unintentionally.

For example: Many candidates of science are associate professors. Pasha Zyabkin – PhD. Pasha Zyabkin – associate professor.

In fact, Pasha Zyabkin may or may not be an associate professor: not all candidates of science are also associate professors, these are two partially intersecting sets, and Pasha Zyabkin can either be included in both sets or belong to one of them, i.e. e. many candidates.

There are multi-story syllogisms (complex).

Men like Angelina Jolie.

Men like beautiful women.

If men like Angelina Jolie, then she is a beautiful woman.

Women who look like Angelina Jolie are also beautiful.

Dunya looks like Angelina Jolie, which means Dunya is also beautiful.

Guidance(inductive method)

It often leads to errors because it forces one to accept as truth a conclusion that concerns only part of the phenomena.

For example: I saw only rock pigeons on the streets of the city. Pigeons are only gray.

Close to induction is analogy(the properties of one object known to us are transferred to another). Unlike induction, we are talking about a single object about which we know something, and the transfer is also made to a single object, and not to a class of beings/substances.

For example: I'll take a red apple. I don’t want to take the green one - it’s for sure sour. Yesterday I ate a green apple and it was terribly sour.

This physical analogy . Within its framework, similar or identical objects are compared.

Is there some more figurative analogy. It allows you to pair distant objects.

For example: A good marriage is everything equals what comfortable house slippers.

- arguments for ethos (mores)/ethical arguments (reliance on the collective experience of society)

arguments for empathy (mention of qualities that are positioned as praiseworthy in society)

a) direct attacks on a person (my opponent is a cretin)

b) indirect attack (my opponent is interested in the results of the discussion, so his opinion cannot be considered objective)

c) an indication that the person has previously said or done something different

- arguments for pathos(passions)/emotional arguments (reliance on a person’s individual experience)

The author evokes certain, pre-programmed emotions (positive or negative) in the audience. In this case, arguments can be directed at the audience itself, at the speaker (certain feelings should arise towards him) or at third parties (feelings towards them)

a) arguments for the promise (promises)

b) arguments for threat (intimidation of the audience)

reasons to trust

If we are talking about logical proof, the argument for trust is that, along with logical reasoning, the person to whom this reasoning belongs is indicated, and, as a rule, a characteristic of this person is given that corresponds to the “logos” spirit, such as “the great thinker of antiquity ", "famous logician of the twentieth century", "Chinese sage", etc.Sometimes the names speak for themselves, and then the usual way their introduction is as follows: “Even Socrates believed that...”, “Aristotle himself, the father of logic, believed that...”. As a third party when bringing logical proof experts may speak.

A reference to authority in an argument to ethos most often contains a characterization of authority (from the “ethos” side) and an indication of the addressee of the speech. Her usual scheme is as follows: “So-and-so, and he knows a lot about this, said that we often forget about so-and-so.”

A reference to authority in an argument for pathos also usually contains a characterization of the authority itself. This can be not only an authority in the proper meaning of the word, but also a little-known person who has become an authority as a person who has experienced what is stated in the threat or promise. Moreover, in the latter case, the third party can be called generically: “Every American will tell you that...”, “There is no need to explain to those who experienced the horrors of war that...”, “Those who lived under socialism remember perfectly well how...”.

d gadflies to mistrust

Distrust in an argument about logos is created by the fact that a deliberately incorrect statement is given, belonging to a person whose logical abilities the author doubts. In this case, the “expert in not his field” effect is also often used.

Distrust in the argument for ethos is created by the fact that some person is qualified as not knowledgeable about people(most often people are quite specific, a given social or age group), not understanding their ethical principles. For example: “So-and-so speaks with great feeling about the problems of young people. But he apparently forgot how young people live. And he simply has no idea about today’s youth, their thoughts and feelings.”

Distrust when arguing for pathos (a threat or promise) is created in a similar way: it is shown that the person appealing to pathos does not know the people to whom he is appealing well. For example: “He promises hungry old people Snickers and discos! He invites them to enjoy the sounds of heavy metal, but they need free medical care!” Or: “Is he threatening the rebels with war? People who have been carrying weapons with them for forty years! Yes...It’s unlikely that this politician will be able to control people!”

Argument selection strategy:

When choosing arguments, you need to consider the following:

Strong arguments are natural evidence:

Judgments based on precisely established facts, documented

Experimental results

Testimony of disinterested and competent eyewitnesses

Expert opinions

Statistical calculations

And:

Quotes from statutes, laws, regulations, etc.

However, even with such arguments you can fight (if you really need it):

Facts may be accurate, but they can be interpreted in your own way (for example, doubt the cause-and-effect chain)

The opinions of experts and authorities can be challenged by calling into question their right to conduct an examination, their validity as specialists, their disinterest in the results, and you can also clarify whether the experts’ opinion concerned this particular situation or whether this opinion was simply far-fetched

Witnesses can be suspected of being interested and that they were unable to soberly assess the situation/amnesia

Statistical calculations can be accused of being unrepresentative (are you sure you surveyed the entire population of the globe?)

Weak arguments admit:

Conclusions from questionable statistics (five people interviewed in a nightclub)

Reasoning with incorrect use of the syllogism scheme

Sophistry, reasoning with a deliberate logical error (“Horns”)

Contrived analogies (the analogy between playing basketball and driving a car)

One-sidedly selected aphorisms and sayings

Generalizations

Assumptions based on personal experience

Insolventthe following arguments:

Conclusions based on manipulated facts

- speculation

Advance promises not supported by deeds, personal assurances (I guarantee you..., I assure you as a specialist..., I ask you just to take it on faith...)

You should not give too many arguments: a large number of arguments, especially arguments of different sizes, leads to a loss of persuasiveness, to the devaluation of each specific argument.

Individual arguments should not be abandoned if all together they create a convincing picture (a situation where only the sum of the arguments can be convincing, but not each of the arguments separately). Let's say we are trying to justify a murder charge against the son of a dead man. We do not have direct evidence, but we can show with the help of a sum of arguments that it was the son who was most interested in the death of his father and had the best opportunities for murder.

You should not use arguments that the opposite side can use to their advantage. The destructive power of your own argument, used by enemies, increases many times over.

Argumentation errors are:

1) mistakes related to thesis

Substitution of the thesis– in the process of argumentation, the author begins to prove a different thesis, not the one he outlined at the beginning. This can be done on purpose, or it can be done accidentally.

Proof of absurd theses .

2) errors related to arguments

Use of false premises (a good driver never gets into an accident).

3) demo related errors

As arguments, premises that are not related to the thesis are used (first a company of four people came to the cafe, then a company of three, the next visitors will be a couple).

1. (40 words) One of the basic values ​​of any person is time, and it must be used wisely. This is taught in “The Tale of Lost Time” by E. Schwartz. Main character I learned from my own experience that slackers will not notice how they grow old - and then it will be too late to achieve something.
2. (54 words) The hero of the famous myth, King Midas, rendered a service to the god Dionysus, and he promised the king any gift as a reward. Midas asked that everything turn golden at his touch. Greed almost killed him, because food and wine also turned into gold. This is a clear example of the fact that the choice of certain life values ​​determines our destiny.
3. (39 words) Animals, like people, have their own life values. Let us remember the dog Kashtanka from Chekhov’s story of the same name: she remained faithful to her previous owners, although the new one treated her much better. Not every creature is capable of such devotion to its own detriment.
4. (55 words) It’s very easy to find out what is most important to a person - just ask. This is what the music teacher did in V. Dragunsky’s story “What Mishka Loves.” One of the boys responded by listing a lot of things – “the whole world”, and the second – only his favorite food. It is clear why the teacher was dissatisfied with his words: exclusive commitment to material things is especially terrible if the hero is a child.
5. (54 words) Story by I.S. Turgenev’s “Khor and Kalinich” is an example of the difference in the life guidelines of people belonging to the same class. Khor and Kalinich are both peasants, but for the first the main thing is a good life, and the second “has his head in the clouds,” but he is a sincere person, close to nature and art. What's better? According to the author, the heroes complement each other and personify two sides of life.
6. (43 words) Some values ​​are called “eternal” - they are common to most people and do not change for centuries. For example, friendship. The Fox, the hero, speaks beautifully about her “ The Little Prince"Exupery. Thanks to friendship, he explains, a person is saved from boredom and loneliness, feels needed and can experience true happiness.
7. (55 words) Gleb Kapustin, the hero of the story by V.M. Shukshin “Cut”, saw his vital value in “bringing down the arrogance” of noble people who came to their native village to stay. He publicly caught them not knowing something scientific fact and rejoiced at their embarrassment. It is not surprising that no one loved Gleb - he who enjoys humiliating others will sooner or later be left alone.
8. (50 words) Life values ​​easily reveal someone as an egoist. For example, the Pig from the fable by I.A. Krylov’s “Pig under the Oak” undermined the roots of the Oak tree in search of acorns, not caring at all that this might cause the tree to dry out. Unfortunately, people sometimes don’t think about how their actions can affect others.
9. (45 words) Home is dear to every person. Its walls are salvation from all life’s hardships. This is allegorically shown in the poem by Ya.P. Polonsky’s “The Road”: the lyrical hero is on the road and envies the coachman, who “will find peace, greetings and dinner ... under his roof” and will be happy, even though he lives in a poor shack.
10. (54 words) It's sad when the importance of something is directly associated with material value this thing or even a living being. For example, in the story by A.P. Chekhov's "Chameleon" the dog bit the drunkard Khryukin when he poked a cigar at it. The policeman first orders the dog to be exterminated, but upon learning that its owner is the general’s brother, he blames Khryukin himself for what happened, and treats the dog kindly.

Examples from life, cinema, media

Interesting? Save it on your wall!

Structure of the proof. Thesis and basic requirements for the thesis. Mistakes when putting forward a thesis.

Arguments. Types of arguments. Rules of argumentation.

Demonstration as a way of connecting thesis and arguments. Errors in demo.

Rules for effective argumentation.

1. The proof is threefold: it consists of thesis(positions whose truth is proven), arguments And demonstrations(logical connection between them). Arguments (arguments, evidence) - provisions that are given in support of the thesis and have evidential power for those to whom the argument is addressed.

Thesis is a position that requires evidence. The thesis requirements are as follows: accuracy, clarity, certainty thesis and its logical consistency.

First of all, the thesis must be specific. Seneca said: “When a man does not know to which pier he is heading, no wind will be favorable for him.” Before putting forward a thesis, you need to think about what you want to prove and formulate it clearly and definitely. Yes, thesis Taxes should be reduced raises a number of questions: what does it mean to reduce? Should all taxes be reduced?

For example, it is argued that spouses should wisely divide household responsibilities, to which they object: “No. Feminism will not work here. This is not some kind of America!” There is a substitution of the thesis (its expansion), because the thesis does not talk about feminism at all, but puts forward a more specific demand: a reasonable division of household responsibilities.

Another way to refute the same thesis: “ Why should I wash dishes and peel potatoes? These are women's responsibilities." There is a narrowing of the thesis here. Nobody talked about potatoes and dishes.

These mistakes are possible because the thesis itself is poorly formulated: ambiguous and too general. What does reasonable mean? What responsibilities are proposed to be shared? All this had to be thought through and the thesis put into concrete form.

The speeches of many Russian lawyers, for example V.D., were distinguished by the clarity of the thesis formulation. Spasovich in his speech on the Andreevskaya case: “I pose as a thesis that I must prove and which I hope to prove, a thesis in the complete truth of which I am deeply convinced and which is clearer than daylight to me, namely: that N. Andreevskaya, while swimming, drowned and that, therefore, in death no one is to blame.” IN AND. Tsarev formulated the main thesis of the indictment in the case of the Kondrakov brothers as follows: “...I declare that the objective truth in the case we are examining has been established specifically and accurately: a robbery against A.S. Krivosheeva. and A.R. Krivosheev, their rape and murder were committed by the Kondrakov brothers.”

Throughout the discussion, the thesis should remain unchanged. If this requirement is violated, errors occur "substitution of thesis" when instead of the original thesis some other one is considered or "loss of thesis"(the original thesis has been completely forgotten).

2. In rhetoric, the following types of arguments are distinguished.

Rational arguments, or, as the ancients said, “arguments to the point” (argumentaadrem) and irrational(psychological, emotional) - “arguments to a person” (argumentaadhominem), as well as “arguments to the public.” Rational arguments include facts, experimental data, testimony, axioms (traditionally accepted judgments in society), and references to authorities.

Fact- an actual event, something that actually happened. This is the best kind of argument. In addition to facts, statistical data and the results of sociological surveys can be used as arguments, but these are not indisputable facts, because they can significantly distort reality due to the error of the method and the very procedure for obtaining and processing information. Arguments that are based on sampling from a multitude are not always reliable. Therefore, when making a generalization based on any facts, you need to remember the following:

if you have all the facts that exhaust the phenomenon you are interested in (for example, you have established that all voters in your precinct do not want to go to the polls), and use this factual information for further conclusions, then you act using the so-called "full" induction, which happens very rarely;

basically, only typical and special cases (facts, examples) are at the disposal of the disputant, which are generalized by a conclusion about the entire set of such cases (“incomplete induction”). Facts (examples) can also be negative (exceptions), which can confirm the general conclusion. When proving, you need to analyze all available facts, taking into account negative examples in order to evaluate the conclusion. For example, students A, B and C are not ready for class. On this basis, one cannot conclude that the entire group is not ready for the lesson.

Authorities. Appeal to authorities is one of the most common types of arguments. If you use an appeal to authorities, then you need to remember that the authorities must be acceptable in the given audience, i.e. enjoy her respect and have high status. They often refer to the authority of famous scientists, political and public figures, writers, and the authority of the law. In religious speeches, the authority of the texts of the Holy Scriptures and the Bible is considered unshakable.

“Knowingly true propositions” (axioms). These are laws, theories, axioms that are traditionally accepted in a given society as unconditionally true; they cannot be challenged. Thus, the devil, in a dispute with Ivan Karamazov, says: “It is usually accepted in society as an axiom that I am a fallen angel”; and immediately refutes this generally accepted opinion.

In addition, the following types of arguments are distinguished:

1) comprehensive– arguments that fully prove the correctness of the opinion; in practice they are rare;

2) main: directly related to the thesis, directly confirm it, presented constantly;

3) auxiliary– are used to strengthen and confirm the main arguments, and not the thesis itself;

4) controversial: those that can be used both “for” and “against” the position being proven; they must be handled with care;

5) strong– those against which it is difficult to find an objection;

6) weak– those against which it is easy to find an objection;

7) arbitrary– those that themselves need proof: You should chew gum (thesis) because it is good for the health of your gums and teeth(arbitrary argument);

8) spare.

In the speech of S.A. Andreevsky in the Mironovich case, the lawyer proves Mironovich’s innocence, analyzes in detail: 1) the examination data; 2) randomness of Sarah Becker's pose: “The main idea that the whole drama of the murder took place on the chair has collapsed. It turned out that Sarah was brought to the chair from another place, laid on it almost dead; there was no struggle here, because the cover remained motionless and blood stains calmly leaked from the cover onto the fabric of the chair”; 2) the calm, natural position of Mironovich, who left in the morning after the murder to collect money from debtors: “After all, if he had killed, he would have known that the cash register had been unlocked all night, that it was still open, that, perhaps, everything was already out of it it was taken away and he is now a beggar, that there are traces of his terrible deed... Where is it before Porkhovnikov? Where would the old energy to pursue debtors come from?

Irrational arguments most often affect the following interests:

self-esteem of the addressee (audience). The speaker shows that he considers the listeners smart, sensible, insightful, honest, i.e. creates a “positive” mood in the audience about themselves. You are practical, sensible people, and therefore, of course, you will agree that...(the thesis follows);

material, economic, social interests of the audience. Every girl will find a groom in the Third Reich,- Hitler promised, addressing the crowd, and found their warm approval;

physical well-being, freedom, convenience, habits of the public. If you agree with my opponent’s position, you will lose your freedom, or even your life. is one of the most common models of argumentation of this kind.

These arguments are addressed primarily to feelings, to the individual or the public, and not to the essence of the issue; they are used instead of an objective assessment of the crime. In such cases, the eloquence of the speaker, his confident tone, and the pathos of his speech are of great importance. Such arguments were often used by the famous Russian lawyer F.N. Gobber: “Plevako... remembering the words of the accuser, he said in a voice that went from soul to soul: “They tell you that he stood high and fell low, and in the name of this they demand strict punishment, because he must be asked.” But, gentlemen, here he is in front of you, standing so high! Look at him, think about his shattered life - hasn't he already been asked enough? Remember what he had to suffer in the inevitable anticipation of this bench and during his stay on it. He stood high... he fell low... after all, this is only the beginning and the end, and what was experienced between them! Gentlemen, be merciful and fair..." So Plevako defended both the priest and the old woman who stole a teapot for 50 kopecks.

Requirements for arguments: arguments must be true, their truth verified in practice, sufficient to prove a given thesis and consistent.

3. Demonstration as a way of logical connection between thesis and arguments.

Demonstration is a method of logical connection between the thesis and arguments, a chain of conclusions on a given topic, presented in a logically consistent form.

Distinguish direct And indirect proof.

In direct proof, the thesis is directly deduced from the arguments, without the help of any additional constructions, without involving any assumptions that contradict the thesis, a direct reference is given to the arguments and facts, for example, when proving the thesis: cats were domesticated later than dogs. Arguments: a) excavations of cultural layers showed that the remains of the skeleton of dogs are found in the settlements of human hunters; the remains of cats appear when people began to engage in agriculture (cats were used to fight rodents); b) hunting as a human occupation is much older than agriculture.

Indirect proof, or proof by contradiction: an antithesis is put forward - a position that contradicts the thesis, then this antithesis is refuted, and on the basis of the law of excluded middle a conclusion is made about the truth of the thesis. This can be done in two ways:

A) the opposite method(remember the proof in geometry). For example, you need to prove that cats were domesticated later than dogs. Let's assume that this judgment is false and that it is true that cats were domesticated before dogs. It follows that the skeletal remains of cats should be found in earlier cultural layers than the remains of dogs; in addition, cats had to roam with hunters. Both of these are not true. The first remains of domestic animals found were the remains of dog skeletons; cats are not prone to a nomadic lifestyle; they never took part in hunting with humans, but only alone. This means that the antithesis is incorrect, but the thesis is correct: cats were domesticated later than dogs. A variation of this method is the technique "reducing to absurdity", or " reduction to absurdity" which was skillfully used by the famous lawyer F.N. Gobber;

b) "method of elimination" or "method of alibi". In this case, the truth of the thesis is proven by identifying the falsity of all possible alternatives except one (the thesis). This method is called the “alibi method” because it is often used in judicial practice. For example, a crime was committed by either A, B, or C, but it is proven that neither A nor B committed it (they had no alibi), which means that C committed the crime (he had no alibi).

But often there are errors when using arguments:

The truth of the thesis is proven by arguments, and the truth of the arguments is proven by the thesis, it turns out "vicious circle of evidence":This cannot be, because it can never be; sleeping pills put you to sleep because they have a hypnotic effect.

"Anticipation of the conclusion." This is an accidental or intentional “anticipation of events” - unproven arguments are presented as strong, weighty, proven reasons for the thesis (conclusion): Should we continue the destructive course of reforms or is it better to return to proven, stable state regulation of the economy? The fact that the course is destructive, and state regulation in the current situation is a stable rate is an arbitrary argument (they still need to be proven). And the listener, by the very form of the rhetorical question, is “pushed” by the speaker to a conclusion that is ahead of this evidence - it follows!

"Falsehood of Reasons"- error in arguments - incorrect facts, unreliable and erroneous data, any false information that is used as arguments.

When putting forward arguments, you should adhere to a number of rules:

Systematicity– arguments need to be submitted in the system, think about where to start.

The principle of quantity and quality. Arguments should not be multiplied so much as weighed. He who proves a lot proves nothing. One should strive not for the quantity of arguments, but for their quality. The optimal number of arguments when proving a certain position is the number 3.

The principle of specificity. Arguments must be addressed to a specific audience, taking into account its characteristics.

The principle of ascending argumentation is from weak arguments to stronger ones.

Universal techniques for effective argumentation.

In order to enhance the effectiveness of your speech, you need to use effective argumentation techniques, which are as follows:

Be emotional.

Address facts that are vital to your listeners.

Try to show real benefits for listeners of your proposals and ideas.

Personalize your ideas (name the people who support your point of view).

Be concise. Short speeches are better appreciated by the audience.

Use numbers. But when using numbers, a number of recommendations should be followed: a) there should not be many numbers; b) let us compare and contrast statistical data. P. Soper cites the following words as a serious mistake by the speaker: “In 1920, the purchasing power of the dollar relative to 1926, taken as a unit, was 0.648, and in 1940 - 1.272.” Should have said: “In 1940, a dollar could buy twice as much as in 1920.”; c) it is better to round the numbers; d) accurately indicate the source of statistical data; e) present numbers in a visual comparison, juxtaposition, for example the area is the same as Moscow, the population is 10 times larger than Bryansk; f) do not give long series of numbers.

Visibility. It is known that a person receives 80% of information through vision. D. Carnegie wrote that the optic nerves are 25 times thicker than the auditory nerves. Hence the enormous importance of visual elements in the perception of speech. About 20% of the information in a public speech is absorbed only through audiovisual techniques (tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, video materials).

Use humor. F. Snell offers rules for using humor:

Tell only what you know well

The joke must be understandable and appropriate

It should be related to the topic of the speech.

Must be short

Don't use old jokes

Avoid racy jokes, especially in large audiences

Don't take long pauses to laugh

There are also some special “technical” techniques that allow you to strengthen your argument:

Presenting the fact as new: Yesterday it became known...; Recently installed...; It just became known...;

Presentation of a fact as established as a result of experimental data: It has been experimentally established...; Experiments have shown...;

Presentation of the fact as established by psychologists;

“Technical” techniques for enhancing the persuasiveness of a speech depend largely on the nature of the audience. Thus, in Europe a reference to the Bible is effective, but in a Russian audience it is not.

Basic formal logical laws

In order to correctly construct a reasoning in order to come to a true conclusion from true premises, it is necessary to know the basic laws of thinking formulated by logic - the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of excluded middle and the law of sufficient reason. Any act of thinking must comply with the laws of logic. These laws are formulated as follows.

Law of Identity: each thought in the process of a given reasoning must have the same definite, stable content.

Law of contradiction: two opposing thoughts about the same subject, taken at the same time and in the same relation, cannot be simultaneously true.

Law of the excluded middle: of two contradictory judgments, one must be true, the other false, and the third is not given.

Law of Sufficient Reason: every correct thought must be justified by other correct thoughts, the truth of which has been proven.

The problem of spirituality, a spiritual person is one of the eternal problems of Russian and world literature

Ivan Alekseevich Bunin(1870 -- 1953) - Russian writer and poet, first winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature

In the story "Mr. from San Francisco" Bunin criticizes bourgeois reality. This story is symbolic already by its title. This symbolism is embodied in the image of the main character, who is a collective image of the American bourgeois, a man without a name, called by the author simply a gentleman from San Francisco. The hero’s lack of a name is a symbol of his inner lack of spirituality and emptiness. The idea arises that the hero does not live in the full sense of the word, but only exists physiologically. He understands only the material side of life. This idea is emphasized by the symbolic composition of this story, its symmetry. While “he was quite generous on the way and therefore fully believed in the care of all those who fed and watered him, served him from morning to evening, preventing his slightest desire, guarding his purity and peace...”.

And after sudden “death,” the body of the dead old man from San Francisco returned home, to his grave, to the shores of the New World. Having experienced a lot of humiliation, a lot of human inattention, having wandered from one port shed to another for a week, it finally ended up again on the same famous ship on which so recently, with such honor, it was transported to the Old World.” The ship "Atlantis" sails in the opposite direction, only carrying the rich man already in a soda box, "but now hiding him from the living - they lowered him deep into the black hold." And on the ship there is still the same luxury, prosperity, balls, music, a fake couple playing at love.

It turns out that everything he has accumulated has no meaning in front of that eternal law to which everyone, without exception, is subject. It is obvious that the meaning of life is not in the acquisition of wealth, but in something that cannot be assessed in monetary terms - worldly wisdom, kindness, spirituality.

Spirituality is not equal to education and intelligence and does not depend on it.

Alexander Isaevich (Isaakievich) Solzhenitsyn(1918-- 2008) - Soviet and Russian writer, playwright, publicist, poet, public and political figure, who lived and worked in the USSR, Switzerland, USA and Russia. Winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature (1970). A dissident who for several decades (1960s - 1980s) actively opposed communist ideas, the political system of the USSR and the policies of its authorities.

A. Solzhenitsyn showed this well in the story "Matryonin's Dvor". Everyone mercilessly took advantage of Matryona’s kindness and simplicity - and unanimously condemned her for it. Matryona, apart from her kindness and conscience, did not accumulate any other wealth. She is used to living according to the laws of humanity, respect and honesty. And only death revealed the majestic and tragic image of Matryona to people. The narrator bows his head before a man of great selfless soul, but absolutely unrequited and defenseless. With the departure of Matryona, something valuable and important leaves life...

Of course, the germs of spirituality are inherent in every person. And its development depends on upbringing, and on the circumstances in which a person lives, on his environment. However, self-education, our work on ourselves, plays a decisive role. Our ability to look into ourselves, question our conscience and not be disingenuous in front of ourselves.

Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov(1891--- 1940) - Russian writer, playwright, theater director and actor. Written in 1925, first published in 1968. The story was first published in the USSR in 1987

The problem of lack of spirituality in the story M. A. Bulgakova “Heart of a Dog”

Mikhail Afanasyevich shows in the story that humanity turns out to be powerless in the fight against the lack of spirituality that arises in people. At the center of it is the incredible case of a dog turning into a human. The fantastic plot is based on the depiction of the experiment of the brilliant medical scientist Preobrazhensky. Having transplanted the seminal glands and pituitary gland of the brain of the thief and drunkard Klim Chugunkin into the dog, Preobrazhensky, to everyone’s amazement, gets a man out of the dog.

Homeless Sharik turns into Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov. However, he still has the dog habits and bad habits of Klim Chugunkin. The professor, together with Dr. Bormenthal, is trying to educate him, but all efforts are in vain. Therefore, the professor returns the dog to its original state. The fantastic incident ends idyllically: Preobrazhensky goes about his direct business, and the subdued dog lies on the carpet and indulges in sweet thoughts.

Bulgakov expands the biography of Sharikov to the level of social generalization. The writer gives a picture of modern reality, revealing its imperfect structure. This is the story not only of Sharikov’s transformations, but, above all, the story of a society developing according to absurd, irrational laws. If the fantastic plan of the story is completed in plot, then the moral and philosophical one remains open: the Sharikovs continue to breed, multiply and establish themselves in life, which means that the “monstrous history” of society continues. It is precisely such people who know neither pity, nor sorrow, nor sympathy. They are uncultured and stupid. They have dog hearts from birth, although not all dogs have the same hearts.
Outwardly, the Sharikovs are no different from people, but they are always among us. Their inhuman nature is just waiting to emerge. And then the judge, in the interests of his career and the implementation of the plan to solve crimes, condemns the innocent, the doctor turns away from the patient, the mother abandons her child, various officials, for whom bribes have become the order of the day, drop their mask and show their true essence. Everything that is lofty and sacred turns into its opposite, because the inhuman has awakened in these people. When they come to power, they try to dehumanize everyone around them, because non-humans are easier to control, and for them all human feelings are replaced by the instinct of self-preservation.
In our country, after the revolution, all conditions were created for the appearance of a huge number of balls with dog hearts. The totalitarian system greatly contributes to this. Probably due to the fact that these monsters have penetrated into all areas of life, Russia is still going through difficult times

Boris Vasiliev's story "Don't shoot white swans"

Boris Vasiliev tells us about the lack of spirituality, indifference and cruelty of people in the story “Don’t Shoot White Swans.” Tourists burned a huge anthill so as not to feel inconvenience from it, “they watched the giant structure, the patient work of millions of tiny creatures, melt before their eyes.” They looked at the fireworks with admiration and exclaimed: “Victory salute! Man is the king of nature."

Winter evening. Highway. Comfortable car. It is warm and cozy, with music playing, occasionally interrupted by the announcer's voice. Two happy, intelligent couples are going to the theater - a meeting with the beautiful lies ahead. Don't let this wonderful moment of life get away! And suddenly the headlights pick out in the darkness, right on the road, the figure of a woman “with a child wrapped in a blanket.” "Crazy!" - the driver screams. And that's it - darkness! There is no former feeling of happiness from the fact that your loved one is sitting next to you, that very soon you will find yourself in a soft chair on the stalls and will be spellbound to watch the performance.

It would seem a trivial situation: they refused to give a ride to a woman with a child. Where? For what? And there is no space in the car. However, the evening is hopelessly ruined. A “déjà vu” situation, as if it had already happened, the heroine of A. Mass’s story flashes through her mind. Of course, it happened - and more than once. Indifference to the misfortune of others, detachment, isolation from everyone and everything - phenomena are not so rare in our society. It is this problem that writer Anna Mass raises in one of her stories in the “Vakhtangov Children” series. In this situation, she is an eyewitness to what happened on the road. After all, that woman needed help, otherwise she would not have thrown herself under the wheels of the car. Most likely, she had a sick child; he had to be taken to the nearest hospital. But their own interests turned out to be higher than the manifestation of mercy. And how disgusting it is to feel powerless in such a situation, you can only imagine yourself in the place of this woman, when “people happy with themselves in comfortable cars rush past.” I think the pangs of conscience will torment the soul of the heroine of this story for a long time: “I was silent and hated myself for this silence.”

“People satisfied with themselves”, accustomed to comfort, people with petty proprietary interests are the same Chekhov's heroes, "people in cases." This is Doctor Startsev in “Ionych”, and teacher Belikov in “The Man in a Case”. Let us remember how plump, red Dmitry Ionych Startsev rides “in a troika with bells”, and his coachman Panteleimon, “also plump and red,” shouts: "Keep it up!" “Keep the law” - this is, after all, detachment from human troubles and problems. There should be no obstacles on their prosperous path of life. And in Belikov’s “no matter what happens,” we hear the sharp exclamation of Lyudmila Mikhailovna, a character in the same story by A. Mass: “What if this child is contagious? We also have children, by the way!” The spiritual impoverishment of these heroes is obvious. And they are not intellectuals at all, but simply philistines, ordinary people who imagine themselves to be “masters of life.”

“Truth is born in dispute!” - We are all familiar with this statement. But in order for this truth to appear, it is necessary to use a sufficient number of arguments and facts. A fact is a unit of philosophy that does not require proof. And this meaning is familiar to many. What is an argument?

Philosophy

An argument represents the basis of evidence or that part of it on which reality is based or in which the main evidentiary force is contained.

Depending on the purpose pursued in proving, the argument can be of several types:

1. Argument ad hominem (calculated on prejudices). Here, the basis of evidence is personal premises and beliefs, as well as statements.

2. Argument ad veritatem (declaration of truth). Here the proof comes from a statement tested by science, society and objectivity.

3. Argument e consensus gentium. In this case, the proof is what has been believed from time immemorial.

4. Argument a tuto. The proof is decisive in case of insufficiency of other arguments; it is based on the judgment that if it does not help, it will not harm.

5. Argument a baculo (last argument). In this case, if all arguments have been exhausted, the last argument in the dispute is the use of physical force.

Logics

Let's look at what an argument is in logic. Here this concept represents a set of judgments that can be used to substantiate the truth of a theory or other judgment. For example, there is a saying: “Iron can be melted.” To prove this, two arguments can be used: “All metals can be melted” and “Iron is a metal.” From these two judgments one can logically deduce the opinion being proved, thereby justifying its truth. Or, for example, the judgment “What is happiness?” The following arguments can be used: “Happiness is different for everyone”, “A person himself determines the criteria by which he classifies himself as a happy or unhappy person.”

Rules

Arguments (A), which are used in the process of proving the truth of a judgment, must be subject to certain rules:

a) arguments must be true opinions and judgments;

b) they must be those judgments whose truth can be established in any case, regardless of opinion;

c) arguments must be the basis of a proven opinion.

If any of the rules are violated, it will lead to logical errors that will make the proof incorrect.

What is an argument in a dispute?

Arguments that are used in a dispute or discussion are divided into several types:

1. To the merits of the matter. In this case, the argument relates to the issue being discussed and aims to justify the truth of the evidence. The basic principles of any theories can be applied here, scientific concepts and judgments, previously established facts, proven provisions, etc.

If these arguments satisfy all the rules, then the proof in which they are used will be logically correct. In this case, the so-called ironclad argument will be used.

2. To a person. Such arguments are used only when there is a need to win an argument or discussion. They are directed to the opponent’s personality and affect his beliefs.

From a logical point of view, such arguments are incorrect and should not be used in a dispute where participants are trying to find the truth.

Types of arguments “to the person”

The most common types of arguments “to a person” are the following:

1. Towards authority. Here, in the discussion, the opinions and statements of writers, scientists, public figures, and so on are used as arguments. Such arguments may well exist, but they are incorrect. This is due to the fact that a person who has achieved success in a certain area cannot be an authority in other areas, so his opinion here may turn out to be erroneous.

An argument to authority can be applied using the authority of the audience, public opinion, the enemy, and even one’s own. Sometimes a person can invent authority or attribute judgments to people who never expressed them.

2. To the public. Here the person refers to the mood and feelings of the listener. In a dispute, he addresses not his opponent, but the audience, random listeners, in order to attract them to his side, thus exerting psychological pressure on the opponent. The use of arguments to the public is especially effective when its material interests are affected. So, if one opponent proves that the opponent’s opinion affects those present, then he will win their sympathy.

3. Towards the individual. The arguments are based on the personal characteristics of the opponent, on his shortcomings and advantages, tastes and appearance. If such an argument is used, then the subject of the dispute becomes the identity of the opponent in a negative light. There are also arguments that reveal the merits of the opponent. This technique is often used in courts when defending the accused.

4. To vanity. D This method consists of expressing a large number of praises and compliments to the opponent in order to touch him so that he becomes more flexible and softer.

5. To strength. In this case, one of the opponents threatens to use force or coercion. This is especially true for a person endowed with power or who has a weapon.

6. To pity. What an argument for pity is is quite clear. This is evoking pity and empathy in the enemy. Such arguments are often used by many people who constantly complain about the severity of life and difficulties in the hope of awakening sympathy and a desire to help in their opponent.

7. To ignorance. In this case, one of the opponents uses facts that are unknown to the opponent. Often people are unable to admit that they don’t know something because they believe that doing so will make them lose their dignity. That is why, in a dispute with such people, the argument of ignorance works ironclad.

All of the above arguments are incorrect and should not be used in a dispute. But practice shows the opposite. Most people skillfully use them to achieve their goals. If a person is noticed using one of these arguments, he should point out that they are incorrect and the person is not confident in his position.

Algebra

Let's look at what an argument is in algebra. In mathematics, this concept refers to an independent variable. So, when talking about tables where the value of a function from an independent variable is located, they mean that they are located by a certain argument. For example, in a table of logarithms, where the value of the function log x is indicated, the number x is the argument of the table. Thus, answering the question of what a function argument is, we must say that this is the independent variable on which the value of the function depends.

Argument Increment

In mathematics, there is the concept of “increment of a function and argument.” We already know the concept of “function argument”; let’s look at what argument increment is. So, each argument has some meaning. The difference between its two values ​​(old and new) is the increment. In mathematics this is denoted as follows: Dx:Dx = x 1 -x 0.

Theology

In theology, the concept of “argument” has its own meaning. Here the true proof is the divinity of Christianity, which comes from the prophecies and parables of the wise men, as well as from the miracles performed by Christ. The evidence in the dispute is also the inextricable connection between thinking and being, as well as the belief that God is the most perfect reality, existing not only in thoughts, but also in the real world.

Astronomy

In astronomy, the concept of the pericent argument is used. So, it represents a certain quantity that determines the orientation of the orbit of a certain celestial body in relation to the equatorial plane of some other celestial body. The latitude argument, used in astronomy, is a certain value that determines the position of a certain celestial body in orbit.

As you can see, it is impossible to give a definite answer to the question of what an argument is, since this concept has several meanings that depend on the area in which it is used. this concept. Whatever argument a person uses to prove the truth in a discussion or dispute, it must have logical premises and be based on proven facts. Only in this case will the dispute be correct and true. In any other case, the dispute will be incorrect, and the opponent who uses such arguments will not be sure that he is right.

The complexity of the arguments that are used to prove the truth of beliefs, as well as the entire process of justification, is called argumentation, the main goal of which is to attract the opponent to one’s side in the discussion of a certain problem.