The argument of the public *** is actually to be viewed in two parts. In the front is scattered questions such as inductive generalization, comprehensive analysis, sentence interpretation, and official document writing, and in the back is a large essay on politics or policy.
Judging from the overall scores of the current candidates, the score difference is more ** than the small questions in the front, rather than the big essays in the back. But it is the rookie candidates who compete in the small questions, not the contestants in the interview circle.
Taking the national examination as an example, in recent years, the average score of candidates' arguments has been fluctuating around 40 points, but the candidates' arguments in the interview circle are often +. At 40 points, it is a small question, and at 70 minutes, the improvement space of the small question is basically squeezed out.
Therefore, writing a good essay may not be a sufficient condition for a high score, but it is certainly a necessary condition.
The classification of the essay on the deuteronomy
As a paper performance of the candidate's logical thinking, the essay reflects the subjective tendency of the examinee when answering, and reflects the subjective judgment of the examiner when grading. In any respect, arguments cannot be freed from the shackles of subjectivity.
It is also marked with a deep subjective imprint, so that the argument is metaphysics in the eyes of many candidates, and it all depends on the eyes of the examiner. It is undeniable that there may be differences in the assignment of scores to the same candidate's essay by different graders, but there will hardly be a dispute over the classification of papers.
When the candidate is faced with the big essay of the argument, the requirements are as follows:
But for the examiners, what is a clear point of view and profound insight?How to define clear thinking and fluent language?There are no quantifiable criteria for these things.
The grading of the arguments starts with the classification of the files. Three types of candidates paraphrase materials, two types of candidates organize opinions, and one type of candidates control words.
According to the 40-point essay of the national examination, the third category of candidates barely enters the 20-point bracket, the second-class candidates may get 30 points, and the first-class candidates are rare.
Grading of the arguments
Compared with the line test, the essay requires too much precipitation from the candidate. In most public examinations, more than half of the candidates' large essays will be classified into three categories. In the post-test essay evaluation process, almost everyone will focus on whether they can run off the topic or not.
But in fact, even two articles with roughly the same point of view have different logics, and they give people a very different feeling. What's more, almost all of the people who applied for the paper were old fritters.
Most of the current applicants are academic leaders of Ma Zhemao from first-class universities in China, or researchers at policy and party history research institutions at all levels, and some also serve as special commentators for the mainstream.
It is no exaggeration to say that it is their job to dissect case materials, express mainstream opinions, and play with words. In the eyes of these people, most candidates can't bear to look directly at their arguments.
The Advancement of Deuteronomy
Most candidates will involuntarily fall into the trap of paraphrasing materials in the end. To say that it sounds good is to paraphrase the material, and to say that it is difficult to hear is to excerpt the material.
If you can still get a benchmark score for the excerpt materials of the public examination essay in the past, then the score of the essay excerpt materials in the future will only get lower and lower.
At present, between the argument material and the big composition, the trench has begun to be artificially dug again. The material and the composition are separated, and even the materials are alienated from each other. Under this trend, simply copying materials not only cannot accurately express the idea of the article, but may also have a sense of déjà vu that is off topic.
In today's arguments, the idea of the essay is no longer placed in a given material, which has forced candidates to begin to have the ability to connect materials and learn to build bridges and organize opinions by themselves.
But even with the ability to organize their own opinions, candidates still face a lot of uncertainty in grading. The grading of an essay is only a minute or two.
In these two minutes, if you want to impress those who control the text on a daily basis, it is definitely not possible to have no highlights.
Everyone is looking for the highlight of the argument essay, but most of them get the highlight wrong. The highlight is not to turn over the pockets of the ancestors, and go to Wenshan to change things and put on a façade. The highlight is not to recite hot words and golden sentences to fry cold rice.
The hot words and golden sentences in our eyes are the draft of the spirit of the people's meeting that has been conveyed for half a year, and it is the mention of the rotten street in the eyes of others. The same hot words and golden sentences, there are more people who read the papers than us, and they have long been numb.
The highlight of the argument is not only a self-consistent display of mainstream logical views, but also an attempt to show the writing skills and control ability. This kind of innovation lies not in its ornate rhetoric and beautiful style, but in its newness. The impression to the examiner is that you have not heard this kind of reference before, but you can understand it as soon as you hear it.
When I was a freshman in high school, at the school-wide teacher-student conference, the then principal mentioned the teaching philosophy and said this: grasp the two ends, promote the middle, and keep the three types of students safe. A seemingly simple sentence has made many classmates still talk about it more than ten years later.
Similarly, the hot words and golden sentences that continue to emerge in the mainstream this year are actually based on cultural allusions or classic articles.
For example, the whip is changed from Zang Kejia's "Old Scalper". Another example is the vigorous effort from Sun Yat-sen's "History of the Chinese Revolution: The Revolutionary Movement".
It can be clearly perceived that the current mainstream ** pen has found a new way for the highlights of the argument. Dig out the pockets of the ancestors, and there are really not many new words that can be taken out. Moreover, once it deviates from the reading and affects the reading, it is not a highlight but a slot.
The period of the New Culture Movement's cultural reform was not only a critical period for the formation of modern Chinese, but also an era when a large number of hot words and golden sentences burst out.
The ability to control words, starting with classic articles at the beginning of the establishment of language Xi, may have unexpected gains.