2. 外语
  3. In politics, in the courts, even on the ubiquitous TV talk show, it is good form to pick an intellectual fight. People attack ea

In politics, in the courts, even on the ubiquitous TV talk show, it is good form to pick an intellectual fight. People attack ea

admin2015-04-24  19
问题     In politics, in the courts, even on the ubiquitous TV talk show, it is good form to pick an intellectual fight. People attack each other — hurl insults, even — and it counts as logical argument. I cannot understand it. It seems that our society favors a kind of ritualized aggression. Everywhere you look, in newspapers and on television, issues are presented using the terminology of war and conflict. We hear of battles, duels and disputes. We see things in terms of winners and losers, victors and victims. The problem is society’s unquestioning belief in the advantages of the debate as a way of solving disagreements, even proving right from wrong.
    Our brainwashing begins early at school, when the brightest pupils are co-opted onto the debating system. They get there because they can think up a good argument to support their case. Once on the debate team, they learn that they earn bonus points for the skill with which they verbally attack, or insult, the opposing team. They win if they can successfully convince the audience that they are right, even if the case they are arguing is clearly consensual. They do this by proving themselves to be stronger, brighter, more outrageous, even. The training in this adversarial approach continues at our tertiary institutions. The standard way to present an academic paper, for instance, is to take up an opposing argument to something expressed by another academic. The paper must set out to prove the other person wrong. This is not at all the same thing as reading the original paper with an open mind and discovering that you disagree with it.
    The reverence for the adversarial approach spills over into all areas of life. Instead of answering their critics, politicians learn to sidestep negative comments and turn the point around to an attack on accusers. Defense lawyers argue the case for their clients even when they suspect they may be guilty. And ordinary people use the same tactics — just listen to your teenager next time you pull him up for coming home late. You can be sure a stream of abuse will flow about your own time — keeping, your irritating habits, your history of bad parenting.
    Unfortunately, the smarter your kid, the better his or her argument against you will be. You’ll be upset, but you’ll comfort yourself that those teenage monsters of yours will one day turn into mature, though adults who can look after themselves — by which you mean, of course, they will be able to argue their way out of sticky situations.
    It’s not that you should never use angry words, or take up a position in opposition to someone or something. There are certainly times when one should take a stand, and in such cases strong words are quite appropriate; if you witness injustice, for instance, or feel passionately about another’s folly. Mockery — so cruel when practiced on the innocent — can be very useful in such situations. There is no better way to bring down a tyrant than to mock him mercilessly.
    What I dislike is the automatic assumption most people have when it comes to disagreements: they should attack, abuse, preferably overpower their opponent, at whatever the cost. The approach is to so ingrained that "compromise" has become a dirty word. We feel quality if we are conciliatory rather than confrontational. We have trained ourselves, or been brainwashed into believing, that to be pleasant is a sign of weakness.
    But just think how easy it can be to persuade a "difficult" person to be considerate of you or your wished when you are pleasant to them, and unthreatening. Give them a way out of a potentially aggressive situation without losing face, and they will oblige you willingly.
    Discuss a subject without taking an adversarial position and you will find the other person happy to explore the possibilities with you. I ’m prepared to bet on it. You’ll get closer to the truth of the matter than you would by going to each other hammer and tongs.
What can be inferred from the passage?
选项 A、Kids are out of control because of their aggressive nature.
B、Kids may become disobedient when parents appear aggressive.
C、The wiser the kid is, the more successful debater he would be.
D、Parents are sometimes too rigid with the way of teaching their children.
答案B
解析 细节推断题。根据选项中Kids和Parents等信息定位到第七段。第七段首句暗示，只要你对对方和颜悦色，对方就会乐意按照你的要求去做，反过来就可以推断，小孩有时不听话，是因为父母不能和颜悦色地和他们说话，因为父母看起来对他们很凶，故能推出选项B正确。选项A和D在文中均没有提及；第二段首句虽提到聪明的学生常被挑选参加辩论队，但这并不意味着学生越聪明，辩论得就越好，两者之间没有必然的关系，因此选项C不正确。故答案为B。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/xkLO777K
0

考博英语

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)