I. Incomplete and unbalanced structure
Generally speaking, the graduation thesis can be divided into three parts: first, there is a small preface to summarize the full text, so that readers can have a comprehensive understanding, or ask questions clearly to get the full text; Then it is discussed layer by layer, and each argument is launched in turn under the guidance of the general argument, which is the main body of the paper. The last part is the conclusion, which determines the length and details of the ending according to the needs of discussion, so that the layout of the paper can be seamless and complete. Some articles lack an important part, such as headless (clue) or tailless (conclusion), and cannot form a complete whole. If some papers do not explain the source of the topic or the purpose and significance of the research at the beginning, nor do they explain the means and methods of investigation, it will make people feel "brainless" if they list a large number of facts and data at the beginning. Some articles have no clear conclusion at the end, no personal views and opinions, and lack of necessary analysis and comments. Some papers should be detailed, but the brevity is too lengthy; The argument of the central argument is not sufficient, but other sub-arguments are relished. In this way, the conclusion of the paper is unbalanced.
Second, the conclusion is loose and disorganized.
Generally speaking, the basic reasoning form adopted in the article determines the internal structure form of the article. For example, an article mainly discusses the cause of something, which is reflected in the structure. Cause and effect must have two parts, either the cause of the result or the cause of the result, both of which are indispensable. The article should be hierarchical and organized. If you don't put the materials in order when you write, it will lead to unclear levels and organization. There are different relationships between things, and there are also different relationships between substances that reflect this relationship, for example, parallel relationship, progressive relationship, continuous relationship, opposition relationship and so on. In short, the relationship between things is clear and embodied in the structure, and the outline of the article is clear. However, some articles are patchwork in content, and the level of the paper neither follows the internal logical order of each part nor conforms to the cognitive law of the author and readers. The lack of overall layout in the author's mind leads to incoherent, even repetitive, inconsistent, upside down, rambling, obvious separation of upper and lower paragraphs, and lack of natural transition, which makes people feel suddenly redundant, blunt and incoherent. Some papers are too long in sections, even without sections for several consecutive pages, which looks very unclear and laborious.
Third, the argument is invalid and lacks logic.
There are two kinds of cases of poor argumentation: one is only theoretical analysis, from theory to theory, lacking necessary and sufficient examples and figures; The other is that there are many materials, but they are not good at selecting materials and organizing materials, and lack meticulous and rigorous logic. The latter problem often appears in many papers, as follows:
In the selection of materials, the requirements of novelty are ignored, the materials are outdated, and some familiar old examples are used, which lacks freshness and attraction;
Can not selectively use typical and accurate materials to form their own views, scattered examples, did not sort out their own views and the beginning of the next pen;
The argument lacks typicality and necessity, and the conclusion is different from a large number of facts in a particular environment only by some facts that rarely happen, so the argument is unconvincing;
After the arguments are put forward and listed, without in-depth analysis or even any analysis, without the process of argumentation, the statements such as "this shows" and "a large number of facts have proved" are used to deduct the arguments put forward;
Generalize the whole with partiality, replace the surface with points, support the big argument with small arguments, and make the mistake of "not pushing out" because of insufficient arguments;
The structure is chaotic and lacks logic. Upside down, the level is not clear. Grab your beard and eyebrows. Some key points are not clear, and the key points are not prominent. Some arguments and arguments are not necessarily related, or they are out of touch with each other or contradict each other, making the mistake of "quoting without foundation" because they don't really understand concepts and facts;
When analyzing problems, we should not proceed from reality or draw conclusions from analyzing facts, but take examples from viewpoints and prove them with facts;
There are contradictions between the front and back arguments, the central argument and the sub-arguments, or they avoid the topic or make subjective guesses, and the analysis is not objective, so there is no need for sufficient arguments.
Some have a single structure and lack of hierarchy. A long article of four or five thousand words, with no sequence code or subtitle in the middle, is very difficult to read, and some of them are incoherent from beginning to end and lack integrity.
4. Inappropriate introduction and conclusion.
In some graduation theses, improper writing of introduction and conclusion is a prominent problem, because the author has insufficient understanding of the functions of introduction and conclusion and does not know how to write them well. The introduction of some papers is voluminous and lengthy, but they have written some words that have little to do with the graduation thesis, even useless, which are far from the point, bloated and complicated, and lack of content, and have not played a good theoretical guiding role. In the introduction of some papers, the whole paragraph copied the relevant contents of the textbook and took pains to introduce some general knowledge, but did not seriously mention the significance of their own design tasks and topics, did not make the key points of the papers clear, the content was vague and irrelevant. The conclusions of many papers do not meet the writing requirements. Some papers have no conclusion at all and no ending, so they can't express their research results completely and accurately. For example, after writing the investigation process and existing data materials, some papers suddenly stopped writing, with no conclusion, no summary, no comments and suggestions. Such a paper can't reflect the final result of the work, without the author's opinions, opinions and suggestions, and it can't be seen whether the research or design task is completed or not, and how the quality is completed. At the end of some graduation thesis, some ordinary students often talk about their own experiences, but they can't deeply reflect their research results. This superficial understanding and feeling can't replace the conclusion of the paper.
Fifth, the argument method is monotonous.
In the process of demonstrating the theme, some graduation theses are monotonous in methods, and the articles appear straightforward without ups and downs. For example, some articles use examples from beginning to end, put forward small arguments around big arguments, and use an example to illustrate them, thus drawing a big conclusion. This argument is not scientific and convincing. Some articles are also monotonous in format, often referring to the status quo, existing problems and reasons. Then put forward some countermeasures, outdated views and data, the article is not strong and convincing. Some articles are rigid in structure and lack creativity. The structure of the paper is always "trilogy" (status quo-cause-countermeasure) or "tetralogy" (achievement-problem-cause-countermeasure), which is very boring to read. To change this problem, we must repeatedly use various argumentation methods in this paper. In addition to the example method, we should also learn to use analogy method-use analogy method to lead out the truth and explain the argumentation method of the argument; Analogy-according to the similarity of two things in some characteristics, it is concluded that they may be similar in other characteristics; Contrast method-compare and compare two things, so as to deduce their differences; Refutation method-to clarify one's point of view by denying the other's point of view and opinion; Reduction to absurdity-refuting the other party's argument, first assuming that the other party's argument is correct, and then extending and inferring, thus reaching an extremely absurd conclusion.