How is the characteristic of "Mencius' eloquence" embodied in Shen Nong Spokesperson Xu Xing? Please briefly talk about the argumentative art of this article.

The argumentative essay mainly refutes the view that "saints and people work together" and demonstrates the inevitability and necessity of social division of labor. At the same time, it also refutes the farmers' view that "no cheating in the countryside" will bring bad consequences of human corruption and disrupting the country. In addition, the article also rebukes Sean for betraying his teachers' morality. Therefore, when understanding this article, we should pay attention to the following key contents.

1. The demonstration method adopted in this paper

(1) uses deductive argument to refute the one-sided view of "both the monarch and the people". The author adopts the deductive method of pursuing step by step and asking the monarch to slap the face. First of all, the view of farm school was not directly refuted by Chen Xiangzhi, but set a big trap by asking about Xu Hang's daily life. A series of questions led Sean into a trap: Xu Hang traded millet for pottery, millet for tools and a white bow. Sean has to admit that Xu Hang can't cultivate one's morality and cultivate one's character, and he can do everything by himself. Then the author tightens the trap again, and draws the conclusion from Sean that "you can do anything but practice". At this point, the one-sided view of "saints and the people work together" is self-defeating, thus naturally deducing the affirmative conclusion that saints can't govern the world either.

(2) When inductive method is used to prove the viewpoint that "people who work hard rule people". The author adopts the inductive method of spreading the truth and finally backtracking. First of all, I used a lot of pen and ink to put out a lot of facts about how Yao, Shun, Yu, Yi, Hou Ji and other sages managed the country and the people, and publicized their great achievements in managing the country and securing the country. I have demonstrated from three aspects that sages can't plow with the people because of "fatigue": First, sages are worried about the world and can't plow; Second, saints worry about educating the people and have no time to plow; Third, saints worry about seeking the virtuous and cannot concentrate on farming. A large number of facts first create an indisputable momentum, and then use rhetorical sentences (such as: "Although you want to plow, what do you get?" "The sage cares so much about the people, but plows in his spare time?" "Is it useless?" ), the author's positive conclusion that "those who do things govern the people" is self-evident.

(3) Using the method of comparative argument, refute the injustice of Sean brothers betraying their teachers. The author lists Sean's brother's unjust act of "dying as a teacher", and Zi Gong, Ceng Zi and others' touching act of remembering Confucius. As soon as the two are compared, the injustice of Sean's brother betraying the teacher is even more prominent.

(4) Using deductive method, the one-sided view of farmers that "the city is good, but the countryside is true" is refuted. Mencius used the same facts as the farmer, but deduced the opposite conclusion, which was tit for tat with the farmer, thus refuting the farmer's one-sided view that "the city is good and the countryside is not fake" more confidently and forcefully.

2. Rhetoric

The rhetorical device of (1) parallelism has been used many times in the article, which makes the level of the argument clear or fully demonstrated, greatly enhancing the eloquence of the article. Such as: "lush vegetation, animal reproduction, poor crops, animals are a threat"; "The father and son are close, the monarch and the minister are righteous, the husband and wife are different, the young and the old are orderly, and the friends are trustworthy"; "Fang Xun's daily efforts are straightforward, and he is an auxiliary wing" and so on.

(2) The article uses a large number of reduction to absurdity, first enumerating a large number of arguments to fully demonstrate, and then ending with concise reduction to absurdity. Usually, you can get two effects: first, you don't directly say a positive conclusion, which makes the other party think, which is more enlightening and inducing; Second, the anti-French argument is more aggressive, which is hard to resist. Such as: "Although you want to plow, what do you get?" "The sage cares so much about the people, but plows in his spare time?" "Is it useless?"