课文讲完了,一同学几经踌躇之后站了起来:“老师,我认为作者把马克·吐温也写成坏人,让他们比谁坏,狗咬狗,更能反映竞选活动一团糟的现实.”面对幼稚可笑却又难能可贵的提问,我没越俎代庖急于草草结论。还是让学生的思维互相碰撞好,于是说:“请大家议论一番,到底是狗咬狗,还是狗咬人(大笑)更能说明问题?” After the lesson was over, a classmate stood up after several brief encounters: “My teacher, I think the author has written Mark Twain as a bad person, so that they are worse than anyone else. Dog biting dogs can better reflect the reality of the messy election campaign.” Childish but ridiculous but invaluable questions, I did not worry about rushing to rush to conclusions. Or let the student’s thinking collide with each other well, then say: “Please discuss some, in the end is a dog bite a dog, or a dog bite (laughs) to better illustrate the problem?”