議論文的寫(xiě)作

議論文的主要目的是說(shuō)服，說(shuō)服讀者同意你的觀點(diǎn)，支持你的觀點(diǎn)，說(shuō)服讀者改變其觀點(diǎn)或行為，說(shuō)服讀者贊同一項(xiàng)政策或參與一次行動(dòng)。報(bào)紙的社論、政治家的演講、各種各樣的建議文章，都屬議論文范疇。

常見(jiàn)的展開(kāi)議論文的手段和常見(jiàn)的展開(kāi)說(shuō)明文的手段一樣，議論文只不過(guò)比說(shuō)明文多了一個(gè)任務(wù)，即勸說(shuō)。

1. 典范議論文的共性

（1）有一個(gè)可爭(zhēng)議的論點(diǎn)。

有了可爭(zhēng)議的論點(diǎn)，不同的人可以從不同的角度來(lái)看待，因而才有爭(zhēng)論的價(jià)值。一般來(lái)說(shuō)，下面幾種情況都不是好的論題：

1）僅僅是事實(shí)的陳述

“Chinese doctors use acupuncture to treat diseases.”是一個(gè)不爭(zhēng)之實(shí)。如果該成“Acupuncture should replace western medical approaches to treat diseases.”，這樣就有了爭(zhēng)議的空間。

2）表明個(gè)人偏好的表述

“Lin Yu-tang is my favorite author.”表明的是個(gè)人愛(ài)好，不能引起爭(zhēng)議。而“Lin Yu-tang is the greatest Chinese writer of the 20th century.”是有爭(zhēng)議，要使這個(gè)論題站得住腳，作者必須給出足夠的證據(jù)。

3）大家都接受、或者可以很容易證實(shí)的的觀點(diǎn)。

“Spitting in public places is not good manners.”是大家都接受的觀點(diǎn)，“The Earth is round.”是很容易證實(shí)的觀點(diǎn)。寫(xiě)文章論證這些觀點(diǎn)沒(méi)有什麼意義。

（2）給出足夠的證據(jù)

既然你的觀點(diǎn)不能是事實(shí)、個(gè)人偏好、大家都接受或很容易就證實(shí)的的觀點(diǎn)，那麼你就要給出足夠的證據(jù)，合乎邏輯地論證，以說(shuō)服讀者。充分的證據(jù)包括：常識(shí)、具體的例子、確鑿的證據(jù)與事實(shí)、權(quán)威的觀點(diǎn)、數(shù)據(jù)。另外，說(shuō)服力強(qiáng)的證據(jù)還要與將要證明的論點(diǎn)有直接的聯(lián)系。

（3）極強(qiáng)的邏輯性

相對(duì)于其他體裁的文章，邏輯性強(qiáng)對(duì)議論文來(lái)說(shuō)，更為重要。所有的證據(jù)和推理都應(yīng)該合乎邏輯地彼此聯(lián)系起來(lái)，共同論證結(jié)論。推理過(guò)程中任何一個(gè)閃失都會(huì)讓讀者懷疑你的整個(gè)論證。常見(jiàn)的推理方法有歸納法和演繹法，這些大家都很熟悉，編者這里不再贅述。

（4）條理清晰的論證

典型的議論文包括三部分：開(kāi)始部分給出討論的問(wèn)題以及討論的必要；主體部分給出論據(jù)；結(jié)尾部分給出結(jié)論，結(jié)論如果在開(kāi)始部分已經(jīng)提到，在結(jié)尾段以不同的語(yǔ)言重述結(jié)論。

主體部分，提出你的論點(diǎn)之前，最好以一到兩段，討論一下反方的觀點(diǎn)或讀者可能會(huì)提出的問(wèn)題，這樣更有說(shuō)服力。然后，列出證明你論點(diǎn)的重要的論據(jù)，這些論據(jù)按照下面的順序排列：從最不重要的到最重要的；從最熟悉的到最不熟悉的；從最容易接受或理解的到最難以接受或理解的。

（5）誠(chéng)實(shí)、友好的態(tài)度

爭(zhēng)論不是爭(zhēng)吵。有力的論辯不是來(lái)自于詆毀、諷刺、夸張、謾罵，而是來(lái)自于確鑿的證據(jù)、合乎邏輯的推理、縝密的分析。專(zhuān)橫、敵意的語(yǔ)調(diào)只能讓人懷疑你的品質(zhì)，弱化你論辯的的可信度，而誠(chéng)實(shí)、友好的態(tài)度卻能為你贏得讀者的信任。

另外，還要注意：不要夸張（overstate），也不要低敘（understate）。避免過(guò)多使用下列詞語(yǔ)：perhaps, maybe, sometimes, most often, nearly always, I think, in my opinion，這些表達(dá)法會(huì)減弱你論辯的力量。

下面是一篇例文。對(duì)照上面的講解，細(xì)細(xì)揣摩文章的妙處，以資借鑒。

Men and Extravagance, or How I Learned to Hate Diamond

We are all sure to have at least one acquaintance who is stingy and we complain to all our friends about what a loser this miser is.  Our complaints are justified, too, given the psychology of this affliction: the person who is retentive with money is likely to be equally stingy with love and attention.  Since everyone desires a balanced give-and-take relationship, the flinty-souled miser is high on the list of undesirables.

But when we encounter the opposite—a spendthrift (揮霍無(wú)度的) in all his glory—where are the complaints?  Where is the Freudian diagnosis?  We hear few downgrading remarks because we all love to see a fool and his money part, especially if some of that money comes our way.  This is particularly true when it comes to male-female relationships.  Many women, for instance, are pleased to be in the company of a man who always grabs the tab (待付帳單), who drives suavely into a ten-dollar parking garage without complaint instead of cruising around, cursing and perspiring, before finding a dollar parking lot a mile away.  How much a man spends on a woman must have something to do with how much he loves her, and besides, how can that wonderful feeling of being pampered be wrong? 

I think it is time that we stop encouraging this distorted idea of masculinity (a woman who goes wild with money is hardly admired!) and give more credit to a man of average income who is trying to behave sensibly.  I am referring to the man who picks up the tab most times but not always, who takes some troubles to buy gas from self-service stations and sometimes shops at a discount men’s wear store.  We are so forthright in considering a stingy man a loser; isn’t it time to consider his opposite—as at least equally undesirable?

Just look at how our society teaches males that extravagance is a positive characteristic.  Scrooge, the main character of Dickens’s A Christmas Carol, is portrayed an evil man until he is rehabilitated—meaning that he gives up his miserly ways and freely distributes gifts and money on Christmas Day.  This behavior, of course, is rewarded when people change their opinions about him and decide that perhaps he isn’t such a bad person after all.

Diamond Jim Brady is another interesting example.  This individual was a financier who was known for his extravagant taste in women and food.  In any given night, he would consume food enough to feed at least ten of the many poor who roamed the streets of late nineteenth-century New York.  Yet, despite his selfishness and infantile self-gratification（自我滿(mǎn)足）, Diamond Jim Brady’s name has become a synonym for the good life.

In my own experience, as unpleasant as a stingy man may be, his frugality is preferable to the hypocrisy of the big spender.  I say hypocrisy because the spendthrift really operates out of some insecurity and not out of generosity or, as most women want to believe, enchantment with them.  Usually he is so worried about his masculinity or lovableness or something that he has to make a bigger impression than anyone else.  Vanity, not generosity or love, is his driving force.

This type of men, at least in my experience, usually seems to revel in owing money too.  Carefully observe such men a while, and just listen to them brag about how they would absolutely die without their credit cards or how they probably owe more banks and collection agencies than anyone else they know.  Just after a woman has seriously fallen for a big spender and his flair (瀟灑) for living, she usually has to face the bitter reality that he is not affluent or self-assured at all—just extravagantly in hock (抵押；典當(dāng))! 

Certainly the big spender might make good date for two or three nights, but as a serious lover, husband, and father, he is a total disaster.