朋友有一天告诉我：“好奇心害死人!”
My friend told me one day, "Curiosity Kills people!"
好奇心，的确“害死”了不少人呢!
Curiosity really killed many people!
好奇心为什么会害死人？且让我来举例说明。
Why does curiosity kill people? Let me give you an example.
纵观人类科学史，几乎每一次飞跃都伴随着杀戮。有的是残害天真而好奇的科学家，不让他们吐露人人都可以好奇地窥探上帝的秘密这个真理。有的将真理的幼苗掐断，熄灭人内心渴求的火焰。
Throughout the history of human science, almost every leap is accompanied by killing. There are innocent and curious scientists who are not allowed to disclose the truth that everyone can pry into God's Secret curiously. Some cut off the seedlings of truth and extinguish the flame of desire in man's heart.
所以布鲁诺被烧死，女数学家索菲娅被当做女巫，爱因斯坦被视为疯子。
So Bruno was burned, mathematician Sophia was treated as a witch, Einstein as a madman.
而好奇地探索本身就危险重重。居里夫人由于对放射性物质的研究而身患绝症，哥白尼晚年因观测太阳而失去视力。
It's dangerous to explore curiously. Madame Curie was terminally ill from the study of radioactive substances, and Copernicus lost his sight in his old age by observing the sun.
好奇心可真是“害人不浅”！
Curiosity is so harmful!
然而布鲁诺昂起头，索菲娅说“我选择数学”，居里夫人高贵地合上双目，哥白尼抚摩著作封面泪水溢出双眼，科学巨人爱因斯坦眼眸清澈，决不退缩。
But Bruno Aung started, Sophia said "I choose mathematics", Madame Curie closed her eyes nobly, Copernicus touched the cover of the book and tears overflowed her eyes, and Einstein, the giant of science, had clear eyes and never flinched.
如果可以齐声回答，他们必然会说：“探索生命自然的奇迹，我只是有些好奇!”如此骄傲自豪!
If they can answer in unison, they will inevitably say, "I'm just curious to explore the miracle of life and nature!" so proud!
帕斯卡尔说：“人是会思考的芦苇。”的确，会思考是人类高贵之处，而好奇心正是思考的原动力。“我们是谁?我们从何而来，又到哪里去?”每每思考这些问题，我仿佛置身于无限的旋涡之中，感到不可知而答案又似乎无处不在。这些问题困扰了一代又一代的人们，但毫无疑问的是，人类正是由此发展，由此升华。
"People are thinking reeds," Pascal said Indeed, being able to think is the nobleness of human beings, and curiosity is the driving force of thinking. "Who are we? Where do we come from and where do we go?" when I think about these questions, I feel as if I am in an infinite vortex, and I feel unknown and the answer seems to be everywhere. These problems perplex people from generation to generation, but there is no doubt that human beings are developing and sublimating from this.
“好奇心似乎离我们越来越远。”朋友又道，指着堆着的课本试卷叹气。我凝视池塘边嬉闹的孩童，不禁有些惆怅。
"Curiosity seems to be getting away from us." The friend said again, pointing to the stack of textbook papers and sighing. I can't help but feel a little melancholy when I stare at the children playing by the pond.
越是成长，人似乎对这个社会越来越熟悉，我们习惯了天是蓝的，月亮会圆会缺，电视一个黑匣子却会唱会跳，母亲的白发会越来越多，而网络更告诉我们，你想知道的，我们都有。
As we grow up, people seem to be more and more familiar with this society. We are used to the fact that the sky is blue, the moon will be round, the TV will be black box, but we can sing and dance, the mother's white hair will be more and more, and the Internet tells us that we all have what you want to know.
《苏菲的世界》中艾伯特对苏菲说：“当人们安于沉睡在兔毛中时，哲学家总是攀在兔毛顶端，向下大喊：‘你们快看！’而人们只是一笑：‘这群捣蛋鬼！’”
In Sophie's world, Albert said to Sophie, "when people are comfortable sleeping in the rabbit hair, philosophers always climb on the top of the rabbit hair and shout down," look! " And people just laugh: "these troublemakers!"
“那你呢？朋友，你会怎么做？”
"And you? What would you do, friend? "
朋友从书本间抬起头，清亮的眸子闪动着光芒，她嗔怨我道：“真是个麻烦的问题，不
My friend looked up from among the books, her clear eyes shining with light. She resented me and said, "it's a troublesome problem, No
过如果不幸‘遇害’，也许是另一种幸运呢!”
If you are unlucky to be killed, maybe it is another kind of luck
【失分警示】
[point loss warning]
本文是一篇逆向思维的议论文，角度的选择新颖独特。作者从反面证明“好奇心害死人”，给读者一种与众不同之感。材料也很翔实，论证说理形象、幽默。尤其在行文过程中，不像规范的议论文的语言表达方式，显得活泼、生动，可读性较强。
This paper is a converse thinking argumentative paper, the choice of angle is novel and unique. The author proves that "Curiosity Kills people" from the opposite side, which gives readers a different feeling. The materials are also full and accurate, demonstrating the image of reasoning and humor. Especially in the process of writing, unlike the standard way of language expression, it is lively, vivid and readable.
不足的地方：一是开头啰唆，不够简洁、明了。文章开头的“引论”——提出问题要简明，要快速入题。如“好奇心为什么会害死人？且让我来举例说明。”后一句的回答要删去，仅以问句出现就可以了。一是结构不完整。最后的“结论”部分，一定要和文章的开头呼应。因此，结尾可以加上“从她的眼中，我同样看见自己坚定的眼神，把握好奇心，奉献自我!”“这‘害人’的好奇心!”这样，文章的结构就显得浑然一体了。(朱庆和)
What's not enough: first, the beginning is not concise and clear enough. The "Introduction" at the beginning of the article -- ask questions concisely and quickly. For example, "why does curiosity kill people? Let me give you an example. " The answer of the latter sentence should be deleted. It's OK to just ask questions. First, the structure is incomplete. The last "conclusion" part must correspond to the beginning of the article. Therefore, the ending can be added with "from her eyes, I also see my firm eyes, grasp curiosity, and dedicate myself!" "this" harmful "curiosity!" so that the structure of the article is integrated. (Zhu Qinghe)
