发布时间：2020-12-17 热度：
argument essay同样是留学生学术论文的一种。argument essay怎么写对于留学生而言相当重要，纵观网络上的argument essay都是英文版本，很多同学表示看不懂。今天我们就来谈谈argument essay写作的机构：介绍、主体、结论。其中你需要介绍argument essay的outline，也就是关键的理念。当然，argument essay的写作难点在于不能随意表达，起结构也是有定式的，我们一定要注意！
1.argument essay怎么写：argument essay的难点在哪里？
在我看来，argument essay其实在书写难度上有点类似于八股文，因为写核心段落要求是代圣人(Literature)立言(Linking ideas from the literature to show how they relate ),不能随意抒发自己主观想出来的观点( Students cannot add their own ideas directly).这是和国内高中教育的议论文写法大相径庭的，强调自己的arguments必须要有出处。
2.argument essay怎么写：argument essay的结构是什么？
正如前面所说，essay和八股文一样有着非常固定的结构，主要分为四个部分：1.开头段Introduction (Including background), 2.主体段(Body), 3.Conclusion(总结段) 4.文献引用(Reference List). 然后根据字数，又可以分为Short Essay(小于1200字)和Long Essay(大于1200字)
3.argument essay怎么写有多少种类型？
商科常用的：APA style和Harvard Referencing
语言类：MLA Style，Chicago Style
法律类：Bluebook(美), OSCOLA(英)
具体要什么Citation的风格在老师布置essay的时候就会说，自己需要提前了解和准备。然后和Citation相对的就是Quotation了，主要区别的是Quotation就是照搬文献原句，但Citation是改写(Paraphrasing)之后再写，写essay尽量少用Quotation，因为在查抄袭率(例如Turnitin这种软件)的时候很容易太高被tutor约到办公室喝茶。4.Short Essay(小于1200字) 的结构是什么？
第一部分：Introduction
1.Topics statement:讲明文章主旨(State the topic addressed in the essay)
2.Background:Provide some history relevant to the topic or give statistics to show the significance of the topic or provide of example of the significance of the topic
3.Summary of Essay argument(a thesis statement)
第二部分：Body
1.写三个主体段
2.每个主体段都有一个Topic Sentence(最好来自文献)
3.每个主体段之后都有N句支持句(other sentences to develop and explain the idea，最好来自文献)
4.最好主体段之间有过渡句(Linking sentence)
第三部分：Conclusion
1.Summary of essay argument
2.Restatement of significance of the topic(Optional)
3.不要有新的文献材料(No new material)
5.Long Essay(长于1200字)的结构是什么？
第一部分：Introduction
1.Topic statement+Background写一段
2.Summary of Essay argument写一段
第二部分：Body
1.先分为四个Sections
2.每个Section下面有N段Paragraph
3.每个Section下面的第一段都是简短介绍下本结Section的内容
4.每个Section下面的结尾段都是总结下本结Section的内容
5.务必注意External logic和Internal Logic
第三部分：Conclusion同Short Essay的写法
6.写作顺序如何安排为好？
我建议是先写主体段，再写结论段，最后写开头段，不然很多学生一个开头段可以憋一天，因为后面没写的话其实自己也不知道要写什么。
7.可否写自己的观点？
我觉得其实是可以creative一点的，具体做法就是先自己想好自己主要的Topic Sentence有什么，用中文或英文把自己的想法都写下来，然后再去从Literature上面找自己需要的素材来丰富自己的Argument(反复强调Argument是Essay的真谛！)，这种写法避免先做Research，然后才开始写的低效。
8.语法占到Essay的多少分？
一般来说语法是占essay的10分左右，不能说不重要，毕竟满篇语法错误的文章真的也读不下去，但极少数的语法错误是可以接受的，因为Essay主要关注点在于你的内容。
argument essay例子
Argument Essay Sample
Educators, IT specialists and other concerned parties claimed that the filtering technology can protect children from accessing offensive online material such as pornographic and violent material.
Do you agree? If not, Support your argument with evidence and suggest the solutions.
In the contemporary society, the Internet plays an increasing crucial role in every field of society. The reason is that the ubiquitous Internet provides a considerable amount of information, entertainment and communication for people. However, a major issue has been intense controversy about the Internet that is flooded into enormous objectionable information such as bad language, sexual explicitness and violent content, which jeopardizes seriously the children physical and mental development. Therefore, some educators, IT specialists and other concerned parties claim that the adoption of filtering technology could provides the optimal protection The Essay is provided by for children from accessing offensive online materials; however, the possibility of negative effects should be examined. The aim of this essay is to discuss validity and feasibility of internet filtering. This will be supported from three aspects: the possibility of failure to filter objectionable information, the inflexibility for school as well as parents owing to unapparent filtering rule and the education of children in media literacy could be better solution.
According to Di Nome, the filtering system is described as adopting technological measure to scan and filter internet contents for pornography, hate speech, violence and other materials deemed inappropriate（cited in Gehman et al, 2003）. In terms of the different uses of the filtering system, it can be categorized as the local software on users’ computers, or the censorship list in ISPs service terminal. Search engines even can contain filtering system to design children-orientated version to hinder illegal information. Nevertheless, no matter which types of the filtering system, they are generally based on URL filtering and keyword filtering (Flood & Hamilton 2003).
Therefore, one extensive criticism for filtering systems has been focused on its URL-based filtering and keyword-based filtering resulting in failure filter and incorrect blocking. The major drawback for keyword-based filters is argued that it over blocks a large amount of the benign information. Spear (1999) claims “the keyword filters are most unsophisticated filtering devices”. This methodology only compares the text of web pages to a list of offending words or phrases and then removes the words from the page or blocks the objectionable pages. Consequently, some legitimate sites will be blocked due to the occurrence of filter-sensitive words or phrases. For instance, based-keyword strategy filter the word “sex” to prevents enormous pornographic sites, whereas at the same time it also blocks sites providing beneficial information about musical sextets, Essex, safer sex, sexual orientation, including the web site of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network… (Rosenberg, 2001). Furthermore, any sites on the internet which related to free speech issues are very like to be restricted because they will of necessity contain deemed-objectionable words. An example offered by Rosenberg is that the American Civil Liberties Union has been blocked by many filtering software (Rosenberg, 2001).
URL-based filtering is deemed more accurate technology than keyword-based filtering in many situations. As it uses automatic web crawlers to search for pages with “suspicious” content, human reviewers then review each page and set blocked websites (Rosenberg, 2001). However, one remarkable problem is pointed out by Spear (1999); he comments that URL-based filtering is a totally based-individual standpoint filter. Designers determine the type of sites that could be block in the light of their own subject perspective, majority of who lack a background in library science (Spear, 1999). Moreover, there are tremendous sites on the internet and many pages are updated everyday. The URL-based filtering technology is like to result in under block some offensive contents due to inability of affording real-time protection.
These who support filtering system assert that although filters system could incorrectly block benign contents, it greatly contribute to block large percentages of objectionable web content. They quotes that the American courts adopt internet filtering software as an “equally effective” but “less restrictive alternative” way to keep the internet a safe place for children instead of criminalizing internet content (Cited in Hunter, 2000). However, this claim could be unwarranted. Hunter in his article “Internet Filter Effectiveness: Testing Over and Underinclusive Blocking Decisions of FOUR popular filters” question this proposal and test the four popular filters. He finds out that “filters fail to block objectionable The Essay is provided bycontent 25 percent of the time, while on the other hand, they improperly block 21 percent of benign contents.” It means that filtering system result in nearly 50% incorrect.
The second reason for against filtering systems is that unapparent filtering rule result in schools and parents failure to incorporate internet into children educating. Filtering companies constitute filtering lists and determine blocked contents in lights of their principle. And most companies keep their filtering lists as a commercial secret and refuse to disclose to customers. Though some general criteria filer rules and parameters are provided with schools and parents to select blocking sites, the actual sites are not given. As a consequence, schools and parents hard to change if they found that legal contents are incorrectly filtered by filtering software. An example of schools have failed incorporated internet in schooling is in Santa Ana, California (Pownell D & Bailey G, 2003). Students and employees alike are restricted, not only from obvious sites which contain pornography and hate, but also from sites associated with sports, finance and entertainment. So when the teachers want to use internet in teaching, the restriction of filtering technology will become a large barrier to improve the educational achievement.
