【名词&注释】
写作能力(writing ability)、艾滋病患者(aids patients)、工作记忆(working memory)、基本技能(basic skills)、增强体质(build up health)、引经据典(chapter and verse)、难以确定(difficult to determine)、组织者、领导者、《雾里看花》、内容空洞
[多选题]阅读下面的材料,根据要求作文。
一个小女孩的玩具车刮到了一位老人,老人坐在地上与孩子家长理论。有人录下现场视频即传至网上,不少人认为是碰瓷。老人被送医检查后,确诊桡骨骨折。事实是,老人并非碰瓷,还婉拒了女孩家人更多的赔偿和照顾。
综合上述材料所引发的思考和感悟,写一篇不少于800字的论说文。
要求:
用规范的现代汉语写作,角度自选,立意自定,标题自拟。
A. 【参考范文】参考范文:理性思考求善求真
在网络媒体高度发展的今天,我们经常发现这样的事情:前一天正在大家为辽宁小伙举债20万照顾植物人女友而转发点赞,接下来就发生了实为渣男家暴打伤妻子的疯狂谩骂;前一天还在对"新式碰瓷"老人疯狂声讨,接下来就发生了对宽容老人的大力吹捧;前一天大家还在为了给小女孩捐款,疯狂转发《罗一笑,你站住》,接下来就出现了对"诈捐"者的愤怒……古人云:"不知者不罪。"这显示了人们对不知者的宽容,然而在信息快速传播的今天,舆论铺天盖地,总是闹得满城风雨,"不知者不罪"又不知成了多少键盘侠的挡箭牌,以至于人们都忘了"没有调查就没有发言权"的谆谆警告。
21世纪我们缺的更多的不是国民同情心和规则意识的提高,我们缺得更多的是理性思考的头脑和求善求真的态度。多一些理性求真,少一些盲目跟风,谣言便会不攻自破,信息时代将会更加和谐。从"女大学生求职肾被割"到"艾滋病患者滴血传播艾滋病"类似案件不经证实便随手转发,从"素质低"到"漠视规则"类似标签未经查证便快速传播,很少有人在意信息是否属实,而这轻轻的一点,这随心所欲的转发,却不知伤害了多少无辜的心灵。正如韩寒所说:"网络的风暴在这片大地上肆虐,卷起了万丈残骸,留下的是一览无余的人性丑恶。"
信息时代,我们传播的是善还是恶,我们传播的是关爱的佛音,还是恶魔的催命符,这都不再简单的是一两个人的事情,而是你我他,是万千大众,是一个社会的和谐健康。所以时代的洪流里,我们要多一些理性,多一些从容,多一些求真,才不会被冲毁头脑,随波逐流,甚至成为作恶者的助手。
多一些质疑探索,少一些随意敲打,网络时代需要你的慧眼,期待你理性的善良。听键盘"哒哒"作响,敲碎了被冤枉者的心灵。网络传播的迅速使太多的人蒙蔽了双眼,失去了判断力,"定义于表象的想法未必就是事实。"董卿一言,诚不欺我。"借我借我一双慧眼吧,让我把这纷扰看得清清楚楚明明白白真真切切。"《雾里看花》的歌词道尽世间愁肠万千,亦适用于光怪陆离的信息时代。或许只是你的轻轻点击,搜索一下,或许只是你凝视片刻,思索几分,真相自会大白。
多一些质疑,多一些探索,多一些宽容,爱的阳光便会洒进阴霾,和谐之花便会开在每个角落。
多一些理性思考,少一些恶意揣测,新社会的真善美,需要信任的基础更加牢固。老人被确诊骨折,可最终也未曾向孩子家长再多索求半分。然而,回顾整个事件,为什么彼时老人被刮倒,孩子家长非但不送老人去医院,反而怀疑老人并与其理论?为什么之后此事传到网上,不少网友非但不同情老人,反而武断地认定老人实为碰瓷?究其根本是信任的缺失,如果一开始大家是抱着相信社会好人多,相信人人都是善良的的心态,那么将不存在恶意揣测对老人的中伤。网络时代,我们需要传播真善美,但这种真善美必须要建立在彼此信任基础上,否则这种传播将会是更多的伤害。在信息传播用秒计算的年代没有调查就没有发言权需要我们每个人谨记心头,因为每一条信息承担的都不仅仅是娱乐消遣,而是真善美的传播,而真善美的发现永远需要一颗理性思考的大脑.一份信任的基础。
查看答案&解析
查看所有试题
学习资料:
[单选题]体育是以( )为目标的教育活动。
A. 提升教育对象智慧
B. 健全品德素养
C. 发展体能,锻炼体魄
D. 追求人生情趣和理想境界
[单选题]有人记忆马克思的生日1818年5月5日时,联想为"马克思一巴掌一巴掌打得资产阶级呜呜地哭",这是使用了( )。
A. 组织策略
B. 精细加工策略
C. 元认识策略
D. 复述策略
[单选题]( )在德育过程中起主导作用。
A. 教育者
B. 受教育者
C. 德育内容
D. 德育方法
[单选题]请阅读 Passage 2,完成 1~5小题。
Passage 2
Come on-Everybody's doing it.That whispered message,half invitation and half forcing, is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure.It usually leads to no good-drinking,drugs and casual sex.But in her new book Join the CluB.Tina Rosenberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positive force through what she calls the social cure,in which organizations and officials use the power of group dynamics to help individuals improve their lives and possibly the word.
Rosenberg,the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize,offers a host of examples of the social cure in action: In South Carolina.a state-sponsored antismoking program called rage Against the Haze sets out to make cigarettes uncool.In South AfricA.an HIV-prevention initiative known as loveLife recruits young people to promote safe sex among their peers.
The idea seems promising,and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer.Her critique of the lameness of many pubic-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize peer pressure for healthy habits,and they demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding ofpsychology."Dare to be different,please don't smoke! " pleads one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers-teenagers,who desire nothing more than fitting in.Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advocates ought to take a page from advertisers,so skilled at applying peer pressure.
But on the general effectiveness of the social cure,Rosenberg is less persuasive.Join the Club is filled with too much irrelevant detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful.The most glaring flaw of the social cure as it's presented here is that it doesn't work very well for very long.rage Against the Haze failed once state funding was cut.Evidence that the loveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed.
There's no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior.An emerging body of research shows that positive health habits-as well as negative ones-spread through networks of friends via social communication.This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciously imitate the behavior we see every day.
Far less certain,however,is how successfully experts and bureaucrats can select our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous directions.It's like the teacher who breaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairing them with better-behaved classmates.The tactic never really works.And that's the problem with a social cure engineered from the outside: in the real world.as in school,we insist on choosing our own friends.
The author suggests in the last paragraph that the effect ofpeer pressure is________.
A. harmful
B. desirable
C. profound
D. questionable
本文链接:https://www.51bdks.net/show/07g35q.html