写作题目
Should we think before we speak?
范文：The vicissitude of history has been witnessing myriad of mavericks and misfits who dare to defy the stereotype and speak out for the masses, thus triggering a dilemma, should we comply with the long-established motto ‘Look before you leap’, or shall we valiantly voice our needs without any ado? Fairly speaking, from the historic perspective, it is provident and prudent for us to be nonchalant and dialectical before we reach the decision.
First, rushed and impulsive decision is prone to be hazardous and jeopardizing, that is to say, when dealing with certain problem, the audacity and precipitousness, rather than appeasing the tension, may actually escalate the scenario. To make specific illustration, the year 1773 has witnessed the Boston Tea Party rising up against the authoritative British Empire, dumping 342 boxes of tea, which worth 150,000 euros, into the sea, ‘To hell with Britain!’ they claimed, the proclaim, though brave and demonstrative, posed enormous jeopardy to the American citizen. The harbor is closed and hundreds of thousands of workers were forced to be unemployed. In retrospect, though act as a catalyst of the Independent War of America, the unpremeditated claim of the Boston dwellers brought about lots of troubles that were supposed to be avoided with a second thought. The law can be applied to numerous revolutions in the human history, which were reduced to failure because of the undue audacity of the leader.
In other words, a well-round perception of the scenario can lead to an organized and coordinated development of the process, as can be illustrated by the Satyagraha Movement, also known as non-violence protest and advocated by Gandhi, a movement which opposes violent revolution and encourages rational defiance against the British government, large-scaled strike, combined boycott and anti-tax , which were all peaceful activities, were involved in the campaign, resulting in the giant leap toward the independence of India. To reflect on thisstruggle, it is just because of the prescience and perspicacity of Gandhi that he was providently aware of the huge discrepancy between Britain and India, thus voice a reasonable solution, or else, a vehement subversion might have cast a doomsday on India.
Furthermore, the lack of rumination may result in the embarrassment and loss, which takes a heavy toll on the conductor. A vivid exemplification is the Prohibition Act (also known as Volstead Act) issued by American Government, in which alcoholis deemed as the root of sin and strictly prohibited. However, the American authority, who claimed the alcohol to be devil, failed to give a comprehensive consideration of the whole picture, the act fueled rampant bootleg dealings and black market manipulations, inflaming the high crime rate. Also, other than arousing the virtues of the American citizens, the act actually irritated many of them, who counted on the spirits to assuage the tension of life and rekindle the hope toward better living condition. So to say, under no circumstance should people speak out their thought rashly with no thought of the other side of the picture, the negligence of which may be tragic, even catastrophic.
All in all, meticulous consideration should always be regarded as the priority during the decision-making process,speaking improvidently is ridden with peril and never worth a try.
解析：这道题目比较简单，意为是否应该开口前先思考。反面观点自然是要follow one’s heart，自由发声，例证需要朝向一些比较谨慎的政策决策者就可以，例如甘地等比较冷静的民权领导者，或者一些美国总统，林肯，罗斯福，奥巴马等都可以结合其政策拿来用，反面例子也有很多，比如草率的波士顿倾茶事件和禁酒令等，同学们只需要在想出例子的前提下对主旨加以概括，变成分论点，同时加进对比论证和因果推理就可以了。