⑴ 勸說口語交際
我選的是（爸爸煙癮很大，媽媽多次勸爸爸戒煙，可他就是不聽）
我的爸爸經常在家裡吞雲吐霧，我們全家都很不高興，所以我就想勸爸爸戒煙。
我苦思冥想了一個晚上，終於想出了三套勸說方案。我想：這三套方案對付爸爸還不是三個手指拿田螺——十拿九穩嗎？
第二天，我翻出了我搜集到有關吸煙對人體危害的資料，這就是我的A計劃：說吸煙的危害。我說：「爸爸，我這兩天發現你這兩天有點像龍。」「是嗎？那很好，我喜歡龍。」爸爸說。我說：「不是，我是說你吸煙多了。您不知道吧？吸一根煙，就可以減少一個小時的壽命。」「龍行去、虎行風，沒有煙雲的龍還有什麼威風。」我看爸爸不聽我勸說，有點生氣說：「好吧，既然你不聽我的，您不信連呼嚕帶喘的龍有什麼威風」。「好！好！好！我聽你的，不就是戒煙嗎？我一定辦到。」我那時候很高興。
好日子不是長久的，一個星期後，爸爸又吸開煙了，我的A計劃也失敗了。
看來我得使出我的B計劃：爸爸的缺點。我的爸爸別的缺點沒有，就一個缺點——摳門。今天爸爸又吸煙了，我問爸爸：「爸爸你又抽煙了吧！」「唔」「如果你還吸煙，我想讓你答應我一個條件。」「什麼條件？」「你得先答應我，現在我們班的同學都有洋娃娃，就我沒有，你得給我買一個。」「不就是一個洋娃娃，嗎？我給你買。」「我還沒有說完呢，如果你還吸煙的話就得給我買一個100塊錢的洋娃娃，如果你不吸煙的話就給我買10塊的洋娃娃。這中間可差一個0，您可得想清楚呀！爸爸說：「我想一想，明天告訴你。」
第二天，爸爸說：「我給你買10塊的。」我說：「您可不要反悔呀！」「行。」我可是一舉兩得。一是我讓爸爸戒煙，二是我有了一輛洋娃娃，我可是火爆玉米——開心啊！
可是老天怎麼也不幫我，一個月後，我發現爸爸又在外面吸煙了，可真讓我傷心呀！
我必須使出了我的必殺絕技C計劃：吸煙對別人的危害，我知道爸爸是最愛我的。爸爸今天又吸煙了，我過去假裝咳嗽起來。爸爸問：「女兒你怎麼了。」我說：「我能怎麼了，聞到煙味受不了？」爸爸不解的說：「我吸煙怎麼礙你的事了？」「問題可大了，你一吸煙，我聞見煙味就咳嗽，而且肺疼，可難受了。因為煙里有很多有毒物質。人家科學家說了，吸煙等於吸毒。光您吸毒罷了，還捎上我，我還是小孩子。」爸爸堅定的說：「我沒想到還會傷害你，既然這樣，那我以後再也不吸煙了。」聽了這句話，我心裡太高興了。
爸爸是個說話算話的人，從那以後就沒有吸過煙，我的心裡比得到一個洋娃娃還高興!
⑵ 勸說口語交際250字
寒假裡的一天，小明和小剛約好在草堆裡面玩捉迷藏的游戲。
內於是，小剛先用手容把眼睛遮起來，小明去躲起來，過了一會兒，小剛開始找小明，小明等了好久也沒有看到小剛找來，就想起了兜里還有一個煙火沒有放掉，他想，反正要等小剛找來，乾脆先在這里玩一會煙火吧！說干就干，他拿出煙火，正准備點火的時候，小剛找來了，小剛看到點火的小明，連忙喊住了小明並勸阻道，小明，你不能在這里放煙火，要放到別的地方放，因為這里四周全部是草堆，放煙火會很危險，而且會發生火災，所以後果會不堪設想。
小明聽了小剛的話，覺得很有道理，連忙收起了煙火，還很誠懇的對小剛說了好幾聲，謝謝，謝謝……下次我一定注意。然後，兩個人高高興興的到別的地方去玩了。
⑶ 勸說 口語交際
英語中勸說別人的常用英語口語交際的句子。
1. If you want my advice, I don't think you should go.
依我看，你不應該去。
2. I suggest that you tear up the letter and start over again.
我建議你把這信撕掉重寫。
3. It's only a suggestion, and you can do what you please.
這只是一個建議，你可以按你的意思做。
4. Let me give you a little fatherly advice.
我給你一些長輩的忠告。
5. If you don't like it, I wish you would say so.
如果你不喜歡它，我希望你直說。
6. Please don't take offense. I only wanted to tell you what I think.
請不要不高興，我只是對你直說了我的想法。
7. In my opinion, the house isn't worth the price they』re asking.
依我看，這房子不值他們喊得價。
8. My feeling is that you ought to stay home tonight.
我感覺今晚你應該待在家中。
9. It's none of my business, but I think you ought to work harder.
雖然與我無關，我還是認為你應該努力工作。
10. In general, my reaction is favorable.
總體來說，我感覺不錯。
716. If you don't take my advice, you'll be sorry.
如果你不聽我的勸告，你會後悔的。
717. I've always tried not to interfere in your affairs.
我總是不想打擾你。
718. I'm old enough to make up my own mind.
我能自己做主了。
719. Thanks for the advice, but this is something I have to figure out myself.
多謝你的勸告，但有些事我必須自己解決。
720. He won't pay attention to anybody. You're just wasting your breath.
他對任何人都漠不關心，你是在白費精力。
⑷ 口語交際:勸說
從勸說的方法著手預習:
勸說技巧歸納
1．直言勸導，有理有據
2．直話曲說，借例言理
3．巧妙引申，歸結謬論
4.因勢利導，或順耳忠言或激將
附勸說小故事
1. 直言勸導，有理有據。
某班，有同學丟了一支鋼筆，老師召集全班開會。
他說：「同學們把班級和諧與幸福看作大家共同利益，個別同學把幸福看作個人私慾的滿足，……小偷偷了別人的東西，被恐懼心理折磨得吃不香，睡不著，整天提心吊膽，精神上受到永無休止的折磨。拿了這支鋼筆的人，每天不也受到同樣的精神折磨嗎？」
這天放學，一個學生主動找到了老師……
2.直話曲說，借例言理。
明朝宰相張居正為了讓兒子名列榜首，策劃讓前來會試的臨川才子湯顯祖第二名，列在兒子之後以抬高兒子身價。於是就派堂弟張居直前去見湯顯祖。
湯顯祖譏諷道：「宰相為侄輩在科場中通關節者，我只知道南宋秦檜干過這種醜事，他要主考官取其孫為第一名，但主考官卻將第一名判給了陸游，秦檜是個奸臣，營私舞弊不足為奇，張宰相乃當代名臣，斷斷乎不會出此下策吧？」
3. 巧妙引申，歸結謬誤。
相傳明朝初年，有一天，告老還鄉的李尚書接到朱元璋的聖旨，要他上貢公雞蛋，原來李尚書得罪不少人，他們在朱元璋面前搬弄是非，說李家的公雞會下蛋。李尚書非常著急，他的門生解縉說：「恩師莫急，我能勸說皇上收回成命。」李尚書無法，只能讓他前往。
解縉：臣代李尚書獻公雞蛋
朱元璋：李尚書為何不親自來覲見
解縉：李尚書在家坐月子。
朱元璋：胡說！男人怎麼會生孩子!
解縉：既然男人不會生孩子，那麼公雞又怎麼能下蛋呢？
朱元璋一時語塞，繼而一笑了之。
4. 因勢利導，或順意而言或激將。
戰國時，齊景公發現後花園幾只珍貴的鳥飛了，非常惱火，命衛士把主管鳥的燭鄒推下去斬了。
站在一旁的晏子指著燭鄒說：「燭鄒，你有三大罪狀，知道嗎？你為我們國君管鳥，卻讓鳥讓飛走了，這是第一條罪狀；我們的國君是個仁慈的君主，你使國君為鳥而殺人，還是第二條罪狀；如果這事傳出去，天下人一定會指責我們的國君看重鳥而輕視人，這是第三條罪狀。」
晏子的話音剛落，齊景公馬上說：「先生的話我領會了，放了燭鄒吧。」
⑸ 勸說口語交際
去年我家搬來了一位新的鄰居，他家有一位大哥哥，長的眉清目秀，但是我卻發現他非常愛玩電子游戲，只要每天放學一回家，他就放下書包去玩電子游戲了，而界一玩就是幾個小時，作業也不做。所以，鄰居家的大哥哥，我想對你說：
你看一看，多少兒童因為沉迷於網路游戲，學習一落千丈。有人因為沒有錢去上網，而去偷去搶，最後走上了犯罪的道路。哥哥，如果你不理會我對你的勸告，那麼他們的現在就一定會是你的未來。
上次，我在報紙上看到，有好幾個未成年人因為沉迷於電子游戲而視力越來越下降，還有幾個真的想我說的一樣，像一個瞎子了。 網路就像一張蜘蛛網，一旦上癮它就會捆住你的手腳、束縛心靈；網路就像一種毒品，一旦上癮，就無法擺脫它。你是那麼迷戀網路游戲，所以，鄰居家的大哥哥，我衷心的勸你一句，不要在沉迷於電子游戲中了，這樣的話你就真的會像我說的的 那樣，視力慢慢下降，成績慢慢退步的。我不希望你會變成那樣。
哥哥，請你覺悟吧!擺脫網路游戲的困擾，走向光明的世界！如果你要上網，就應該光明正大的玩，自己不用偷偷摸摸的，家長也放心你！
哥哥，我衷心的希望你能擺脫網路游戲的迷惑，使自己的成績更上一層樓；成為品學兼優的好學生！
⑹ 口語交際——勸說
怎樣勸說別人才有效
在日常生活中，人們常常遇到這樣一種情景：你在與別人爭論某個問題，分明自己的觀點是正確的，但就是不能說服對方，有時還會被對方「駁」得啞口無言。這是什麼原因呢？
心理學家認為，要爭取別人贊同自己的觀點，光是觀點正確還不夠，還要掌握微妙的交往技術。心理學家經過研究，提出了許多增強說服力的方法，其中最基本的有六種。
1.利用「居家優勢」
鄰居家的一棵大樹盤根錯節，枝葉茂盛，遮住了你家後園菜地的陽光，你想與他商量一下這個問題，是應該到他家去呢，還是請他到你家來？
心理學家拉爾夫•泰勒等人曾經按支配能力（即影響別人的能力），把一群大學生分成上、中、下三等，然後各取一等組成一個小組，讓他們討論大學十個預算削減計劃中哪一個最好。一半的小組在支配能力高的學生寢室里，一半在支配能力低的學生寢室里。泰勒發現，討論的結果總是按照寢室主人的意見行事，即使主人是低支配力的學生。
由此可見，一個人在自己或自己熟悉的環境中比在別人的環境中更有說服力，在日常生活中應充分利用居家優勢，如果不能在自己家中或辦公室里討論事情，也應盡量爭取在中性環境中進行，這樣對方也沒有居家優勢。
2.修飾儀表
你想上級在申請書上簽字，你是不顧麻煩，精心修飾一下儀表呢，還是相信別人會聽其言而不觀其貌？
我們通常認為，自己受到別人的言談比受到別人的外表的影響要大得多，其實並不盡然。我們會不自覺地以衣冠取人。有人通過實驗證明，穿著打扮不同的人，尋求路人的幫助，那些儀表堂堂、有吸引力的人要比那些不修邊幅的人有更多的成功可能。
3.使自己等同於對方
你試圖鼓動一夥青年去清掃某塊地方，而他們卻情願到別的地方去，你怎樣引起他們的興趣呢？
許多研究者發現，如果你試圖改變某人的個人愛好，你越是使自己等同於他，你就越具有說服力。例如，一個優秀的推銷員總是使自己的聲調、音量、節奏與顧客相稱。甚至身體姿勢、呼吸等也無意識地與顧客一致。這是因為人類具有相信「自己人」的傾向。正如心理學家哈斯所說的：「一個造酒廠的老闆可以告訴你為什麼一種啤酒比另一種好，但你的朋友，不管是知識淵博的，還是學識疏淺的，卻可能對你選擇哪一種啤酒具有更大的影響。」
4.反映對方的感受
你准備拜訪隔壁新搬來的一對夫婦，請他們為社區的某項工程募捐，用哪種方法最好呢？
平庸的勸說者是開門見山提出要求，結果發生爭執，陷入僵局；而優秀的勸說者則首先建立信任和同情的氣氛。如果主人為某事煩惱，你就說：「我理解你的心情，要是我，我也會這樣。」這樣就顯示了對別人感情的尊重。以後談話時，對方也會加以重視。
當然，優秀勸說者也不總是一帆風順的。他也會遭到別人的反對。這時老練的勸說者往往會重新陳述對方的意見，承認它具有優點，然後才指出自己的意見更好，更全面。研究證明，在下結論前，呈示雙方的觀點，要比只講自己的觀點更有說服力。
5.提出有力的證據
你准備參加某次決策會議，為一項不為大家重視的事業爭取更大的一筆錢款，什麼樣的證據最有說服力呢？
如果向聽眾提供可靠的資料而不是個人的看法，你就會增加說服力。但要記住，聽眾受到證據的影響，也相同程度地受到證據來源的影響。在一項實驗中，讓兩組被試聽到關於沒有處方是否可以賣抗阻胺片的爭論，然後告訴一組被試說可以賣的證據來自《新英格蘭生理和醫學月刊》（這是虛構的），另一組則被告知證據來自一家流行畫報。結果發現，第一組比第二組有更多的人贊成，沒有處方也可以賣抗阻胺片。因此，引用權威更能消除聽眾的先入之見。
6.運用具體情節和事例
你刊登廣告，推銷某種葯品，是把葯品的成分、功能、用法詳細介紹一番好呢？還是介紹某個患者使用後如何迅速痊癒的事例好呢？
優秀的勸說者都清楚地知道這樣一點：個別具體化的事例和經驗比概括的論證和一般原則更有說服力。因此，你要多賣掉葯品，你就應酌情使用後面一種方法。在日常生活中，你要說服別人，你就應旁證博引，使用具體的例子，而不一味空洞說教。
總之，說服別人，贏得贊同的能力並不是神秘的天賦，通過學習一些社會交往技能（當然首先要觀點正確），我們就可以增強自己言談的說服力。為了堅信這一點，你不妨試一試。
⑺ 口語交際 勸說例文
How to convince others by skillfully using twisted logic
A Special Report
America's Small Business Marketing Expert
R40 right 1997
Here comes one of the most important skills a marketer can have. If you understand a few things about twisted logic, and how it's used in marketing, advertising, persuasion, and sales--you'll be way ahead of the pack.
You can take university courses on twisted logic, but they will only teach you how to identify it and how to protect yourself from it. That's all well and good, but we want to go a step further. We want to USE twisted logic to help you obtain your goals.
Is this dishonest? Perhaps in a very strict sense. But you won't find many people in ANY walk of life that don't use twisted logic. IT IS EVERYWHERE..from the Supreme Court, to the President of the United States, to your neighborhood proce man, to your favorite clergy person.
Believe it or not, twisted logic is an important part of being human. That's the way it's been for THOUSANDS of years in EVERY country of the world.
Now. Let's get started.
Why would you want to use twisted logic?
Won't people say, "that makes no sense?"
Not at all. When people hear an issue discussed, they expect twisted logic. It's part of our culture. It has been an important part of the way we talk for thousands of years. It's how we persuade people. You are already very good at it. You win arguments every day with twisted logic. We are so used to it that we've probably never stopped to think about it. It's like the guy who said, "I don't know who discovered water, but I'll bet it wasn't a fish."
Experts have been talking about this ever since Aristotle penned The Art of Rhetoric several hundred years before the birth of Jesus. There is a big list of devices for fallacial reasoning, but we will only cover the ones most often used in media arguments.
Some Commonly Used Types of Twisted Logic
The biggest one is suppressed evidence. Even little kids use it. You tell the story, but not the WHOLE story. You leave out the part that would make you look bad, or in our case, make our message look less potent.
Politicians use evidence suppression constantly. They call it "looking at things positively." The real story is that they only tell you the parts they want you to hear. They leave out the aspects that contradict their message.
When your audience is not aware of the deleted details, this technique can be very effective. It can often be effective when the audience does know the whole story. People are so used to hearing the one-sided story that they often won't notice, they may even expect it.
The greatest persuaders of all time are a mixed bag. They range from Thomas Jefferson and George Washington to Julius Caesar and the United States Government (at certain times in history). We try to learn from the good as well as the bad, keeping in mind that we should never step over the line to use persuasion to hurt others.
Nazi propaganda advisors (for better or worse regarded as some of the best in history) said that the one-sided story worked best. Giving a fair, balanced version to gain the audience's respect was regarded as ineffective.
Media persuaders often use the slippery slope. This is the old domino theory. Once one bad thing happens, then all sorts of other bad things will happen as a consequence. You see this one used a lot in advertising. If you don't buy the proct or service today, you'll develop a problem which will eventually destroy your life.
Is it really all that bad? Probably not. But the slipper slope is pretty good at convincing you otherwise.
The teenager takes a sip of beer, then goes on to pot. Before you know it, he's a full- blown heroin addict. Only a small percentage of cases turn out this way, but that is part of what the slippery slope is trying to conceal.
The city won't fix a traffic light. An accident results. The city is sued by the injured, costing thousands of dollars, forcing cancellation of politically important budget items, and derailing a politician's career. The lawsuit is quite probable, but the destruction of the politician as a result is stretching it a bit. As long as it's still in the realm of possibility, the slippery slope will slip past just fine.
The slippery slope is a fun one to use, especially when you can make it sound fairly logical. Aim it so that it starts with your problem and slippery slopes right toward a horrible disaster for the person you're trying to persuade. It's a way of relating your problem to their problems.
I hear the hasty conclusion used quite a lot these days. I get nuts over how many people buy it. It's simple and, oddly, very effective.
You present a piece of evidence to support your conclusion and hastily conclude that your point is right. The problem is, while the single piece of evidence does support the conclusion, it isn't enough by itself.
One unfairly and unfortunately used in many viewers minds: "I saw a black man steal a car on TV. Therefore, you have to be careful in the black neighborhood. They steal cars." Is that a fair blame to place on all African-American neighborhoods? Certainly not. But that is exactly what the hasty conclusion is trying to conceal. You've heard the hasty conclusion many times, and perhaps you've said, "Now don't start jumping to conclusions." You have noticed that other people listening were not bothered by this, they jumped right to the hasty conclusion with the person offering it.
This device is especially useful when you're trying to stir up people who already agree with your basic message. In this case, the audience wants to believe the message and merely needs the lightest of evidence to join in.
The hasty conclusion is also effective when the audience doesn't understand the intricacies of the story. Technical issues are almost always decided too hastily. The audience simply doesn't have the specialized ecation or patience to sit through the whole story. They want an answer quickly, and they don't mind if you skip a little too rapidly to a solution.
We are accustomed to the scientific method providing us with truth. The idea that a researcher could interview a carefully selected 220 people, and tell from that what all people think, is as common as the morning paper. But what if the people that are asked are not representative of the general population?
Then we have a small or unrepresentative sample.
This one gets used when somebody says,. "But everybody I know says...." When you think about it, they are probably only talking about two or three people, who may be very rich, or very conservative, or very religious, or unusual in some other way. "Everybody I know" is not a representative sample of everybody in town. In other words, your friends don't necessarily represent me and my friends, much less the woman on the other side of the river.
This is why there is so much fine print with responsible polling. Experts want to know just exactly how the statistics were arrived at. Even the little graph on the front of US Today can be slanted a bit so that instead of revealing information about everybody, it only tells us about a certain group.
It's not unusual to see a few wealthy home owners appear on TV to say everybody in the area is opposed to the building of a new health facility. They claim it will attract the wrong element and lower property values. Invariably, wait a couple of days, and you will see a newspaper story interviewing some people in the same area who would be delighted to see a new health facility built.
While the first home owners on TV convinced us that all were in opposition, they obviously did not represent the whole group. An activist pushing for the new facility would find a few who support it and represent them as the majority. Who has done the research to prove that they are wrong?
This brings to mind another tactic of twisted logic: unknowable statistics. I once worked for a prominent radio program director who would astound us in meetings with his voluminous knowledge of audience statistics.
He backed up his beliefs with "23% of women aged 20 to 44 prefer that only 5% of the newscast covers city hall." Everyone in the room, all experienced broadcasters, accepted his statistics without question. Then it occurred to me, how could he know all this stuff?
The fact was, he didn't. He made it up. Since we didn't have any way to prove whether his numbers were wrong or right, we just accepted them as sounding pretty darned official.
Listen to the media. When you hear a persuader saying "two-thirds do this" and "60% do that," ask yourself, how does she know these things? You may have uncovered an unknowable statistic (at least unknowable without a load of expensive research that you know they probably haven't done). It may be a statistic that the persuader is basing loosely on something he does know, or it may be an outright lie. The opponent won't or can't do the research either, so he can't really disagree with much authority.
Thus goes the old saying: there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
When politicians try to get folksy, they often use the faulty comparison. This is when the President said, "I can't understand why the NRA won't support my bill to ban bullets that penetrate police jackets. I'm almost fifty years old and I have yet to see a deer, or a ck, or a goose wearing a mylar vest."
I laughed. He made his point very simply and I might be inclined to share the story with someone else. But a comical view of a ck wearing a flack jacket is nothing compared to the complicated and technical discussion of materials in bullets that had gone on prior to the President's comment.
If I say, "taking cks out of the park pond is like banning footballs from the university stadium," it's true that both items are familiar parts of their separate situations. But taking footballs out of the stadium would imply the end to college football games that thousands live for. My faulty comparison makes the removal of the cks sound much more evil than it probably deserves to be.
That is OK if I want the cks to stay, and people are jolted by the comparison.
The straw man is like suppressed evidence turned around backwards. You build a straw man when you represent your opponent's position, but while doing so, add some critical flaws to make his position easier to attack.
An historical building, which is rather dilapidated, is being torn down without the opportunity for renovation. There are all kinds of structural problems with the building. It would be expensive to repair and the city doesn't want to divert the money to pay for it.
Driving by, the only damage you see from the street, is a number of broken windows. Your straw man message will be: "The old fortress is being torn down by the city, even though all anybody can see wrong with it are a few broken windows. The proposal to renovate and preserve this valuable historic structure was quickly glossed over by the City Council. Why don't they just fix the windows? There may be some evidence that one member wants the building removed so that a crony's development company can build a strip mall."
Was the City Council's position misrepresented for easy attack? You bet it was. It could be possible, though, that the straw man version given may be close to the real truth, or it may reveal the underlying attitude of the Council on other issues.
Applying All This To Making More Money
I'll admit it. Many of the examples that I have used here have had to do with the news and politics. That's where we tend to notice twisted logic the most. Advertising is also full of it, but we tend to expect that from advertising. No one expects a TV commercial to make a completely fair comparison between the advertised proct and the competition.
Most of us tend to write our ads according to the way we've seen ads written before, without really understanding some of the persuasive techniques we're using. By consciously understanding some of the basics of persuasion, you will be a much more mighty marketer.
Your ads will sell, your commercials zing, and your sales pitches will boil with persuasive power. Am I exaggerating? Remember that the greatest persuaders in history were all masters of twisted logic. The next time you see your favorite business mogul on TV or interviewed in a magazine, watch for him or her to use twisted logic. Chances are, they will use it and use it well.
***
Some final thoughts on twisted thinking.
It is generally not a good idea to attack a person as a bad indivial. It leaves you open to lawsuits and the perception that you're just a little bit nasty. A better solution is to insinuate the bad person's guilt by associating them with someone or something that you know the audience doesn't care for.
Guilt by association is something our legal system avoids, but the average person has no problem with it. People may say they object to guilt by association ring an ideological discussion, but in actual practice they may use the device all the time.
Also remember that experts in one field aren't necessarily experts in another. Television is constantly using media stars to advertise everything from soft drinks to long distance telephone services. Because a skinny pop singer can hit high "c", does that mean she knows all about research animals? No, but the people who would be against animal research are quite likely the same people who like the singer's music. Since they like her, they will be inclined to believe what she says about just about almost anything (within reason).
⑻ 口語交際之勸說（約50字左右便可）
勸說身邊的人戒煙，抽煙對自己不好也嚴重影響了他人的生活，二手煙的危害要比一手的還要嚴重的多，請善待自己，同時也善待別人！
⑼ 勸說口語交際100字
爸爸的煙癮很大，媽媽多次勸爸爸戒煙，爸爸就是不聽；就算聽了，也就是幾個小時，過後又吸煙了。爸爸吸煙吐出的煙嗆得我和媽媽直咳嗽。爸爸吸煙還吸出了病，可他還是屢教不改。
有一次，上品德與社會，我看到《煙和酒的對話》，不看不知道，一看嚇一跳！原來煙對人體有這么大的危害性。放學後，我回家把《煙和酒的對話》拿給爸爸看，爸爸看了嚴肅得說：「yes！我以後再也不會吸煙了。以前沒有認識到煙的危害這么大，危害家人的身體，同時也危害了自己的身體。」我裝作老師的腔調：「不錯不錯，希望你說到做到。」說罷，我和爸爸都笑了起來。
我怕爸爸不遵守諾言又想了一個法子——以身作則。我跑到爸爸旁邊，問，「爸爸做人可不可不撒謊？」爸爸說：「假如是善意的謊言可以，但如果不是的話，那是絕對不可以的。撒謊就是壞孩子。」我又問：「爸爸吸煙對人體有什麼好處？」爸爸說：「俗話說的好『飯後一支煙，賽過活神仙』。我問：「真的有這么好？」爸爸說：「當然。」我奪過煙，吸了起來。爸爸生氣的說：「小孩子不可以吸煙。」我說：「什麼都要從娃娃抓起，吸煙也要從娃娃抓起。不然，你不就後繼無人了嗎？」爸爸啞口無言。「吸煙有什麼壞處？」我又問。爸爸說：「吸煙危害身體健康，而且有可能使人走上犯罪道路，甚至導致人死亡。」我說：「爸爸你真是了不起，懂得這么多。爸爸得意揚揚的說：「那是！」我疑惑的問：「那你為什麼要知法犯法，做一個壞小孩呢？你不是常常教育我們不要吸煙嗎？你也是我的榜樣呀。你既然教育我，那你這個做爸爸的也要以身作則。」爸爸聽後羞愧的低下了頭。
從此以後，爸爸再也不抽煙了。我在教育爸爸的同時也在教育了自己。不去靠近那些危害人類健康的『無形殺手』。
⑽ 勸說口語交際100字
我有一個鄰居哥哥，他經抄常到網吧去打游戲，不僅導致學習退步，而且視力下降，與家人疏遠，甚至有時還與家人吵架。
我想借這次機會想對他說，大哥哥，請你不要去網吧了好嗎？你也應該想想，網吧是一個對我們沒有好處的地方啊！你的家人對你多好啊！可是你只要聽到勸你不要去網吧的話，你就對家人大吼大叫，你知道嗎？你的家人是多麼地傷心啊，你不但不聽他們的話，而且還硬要去，你爸媽不肯，你就對他們說出了這樣的一句話：「我的事不要你們管！」你知道嗎？你的家人聽了，心一定都碎了。