When the problem is determined, it is quite easy to create a composition structure:
Composition-reasoning in the USE format (structure)
1. Formulation of the problem (in the form of a dualistic thesis or a problematic issue).
Comment on the problem.
The author’s position on the problem.
Your position on the affected issue.
5, 6. Arguments that prove the consistency of your position (at least 2).
7. Conclusion, which in general terms repeats your (and author’s) position on the issue.
It is easy to see that the problem is the basis of each part of the composition, which should be 7 (if the expert commission of the USE does not insist on mandatory entry).
Let us consider in more detail the peculiarities of writing each part on the example of an essay from the story of A. P. Chekhov “Tears of a crocodile”.
Definition and formulation of the problem, comments on the problem, author’s position
as it sounds, but we will formulate the problem when we determine the position of the author. Read the text and answer the questions: what topic is it dedicated to? what condemns, than admires, what the author wanted to tell us?
Chekhov devoted his story to the duplicity of man, and the most terrible, when a person does not notice it in himself. Judah lamented about the imperfection of the world, its injustice (“N-yes,” he continued thoughtfully, “in terms of the universe, obviously there was no poverty, corruption and shame, but in reality they are.” They themselves were created by mankind. scourge… “) and immediately takes away from the widow an” orphan penny “(” And six rubles will be too much. “Do not give more than five, otherwise we’ll be so rotten.”). It is terrible in this scene that Judah sincerely laments the world’s evil and just as sincerely as he does. The author condemns the hero of the story, which manifests itself even in the title “Tears of a crocodile” and “talking” the surname of
Judah. Chekhov asks: is it possible to change the world in which people do not know how to distinguish between evil and good?
Approximately so, our reasoning should look like. Immediately mention that you could see other problems, but they – one way or another – would affect the issue of duplicity, uncritical attitude to a person.
Pay attention to the last two sentences in our reasoning – they sound the author’s position and the problem touched in the text. Now it is easy for us to write down the first three paragraphs of the work, slightly expanding and transforming our reasoning.
First – a problem issue. Can you change the world without changing yourself, but only lamenting its imperfection, condemning others?
Further, comments on the problem (they basically repeat our reasoning, we can only change the beginning: We read this question between the lines of the Chekhov story, whose hero, the owner of the pawnshop, Judah, quite accurately identifies the whole ugly injustice of life, and does it alone with himself, sincerely… and further as they reasoned).
Then – the position of the author. Chekhov believes that you need to start changing the world with yourself. If everyone does one good thing per day, he will act in accordance with conscience, not profit, the world will not need laws and revolutions – it will become beautiful! But for this it is necessary to learn not to share your thoughts and actions, to stop doubling.
Your position, your arguments
Your position will repeat the position of the author in its essence. At once we will stipulate that it is possible to disagree with the author, however, such work will require much more effort, irrefutable arguments and undoubted skill in writing essays-russuzheny, because you have to refute the “eternal truths” that always become the basis of the examination texts.
When its own position is formulated, arguments are given to confirm it. There must be at least two of them. 1 reader’s (from the literary or journalistic literature) and 1 “vital” (historical analogies, statistics, widely known facts of the present, etc.) or 2 reader’s – both combinations are evaluated equally (3 points) if selected successfully.
The argument must have the following structure. repetition in general or in essence of the starting position (in our case: the person says one thing, does the other, the evil multiplies) is the result. which you predict in your opinion on the problem (a person will change – the world will change).
As a reader’s argument for Chekhov’s story, one can choose the plot line with Judush Golovlev from the “Golovlev’s Lords” ME Saltykov-Shchedrin (Judas constantly speaks about God, he is concerned about the correctness of life, “blaalepia,” and he leads his sons to untimely death, mother, and in the end – and myself).
Another reader’s argument could well be the story told in the story of Pavel Sanayev “Bury me behind the plinth”. It is, of course, very ambiguous, but in a simple interpretation of the graduate will become a clear evidence of the spiritual blindness of a person accusing the world and not wanting to see itself as it is.
The conclusion once again – already in the second – confirms the position of the author (and now yours). It is desirable to make it more open: with forecasts, wishes, even morality, for example: Only by improving ourselves, like Leo Tolstoy, eradicating our imperfections, we can change life. A person can not be better done against his will, he can not “instill love for the Motherland or a feeling of compassion”: by our example, by our spiritual heroism we eradicate abominations – both our own and those around us.