Traditionally，across the world，boys and girls attend a mixed school，where they study together.But boys' schools are the perfect place to teach young men to express their emotions and involve them in activities such as art，dance and music.

Boys at single－sex schools were said to be more likely to get involved in cultural and artistic activities that helped develop their emotional expressiveness，rather than feeling they had to correspond to(和……相符) the “boy code” of hiding their emotions to be a “real man”．

The findings of the study go against received wisdom that boys do better when taught alongside girls.

Tony Little，headmaster of Eton，warned that boys were being failed by the British education system because it had become too focused on girls.He criticized teachers for failing to recognize that boys are actually more emotional than girls.

The research argued that boys often perform badly in mixed schools because they become discouraged when girls do better earlier in speaking and reading skills.

But in single－sex schools teachers can tailor lessons to boys' learning style，letting them move around the classroom and getting them to compete in teams to prevent boredom，wrote the study's author，Abigail James，of the University of Virginia.

Teachers could encourage boys to enjoy reading and writing with “boy－focused” approaches such as themes and characters that appeal to them.Because boys generally have more acute vision，learn best through touch，and are physically more active，they need to be given “hands－on” lessons where they are allowed to walk around.“Boys in mixed schools view classical music as feminine (女性的) and prefer the modern genre (类型) in which violence and sexism are major themes，” James wrote.

Single－sex education also made it less likely that boys would feel that they had to be “masterful and in charge” in relationships. “In mixed schools，boys feel forced to act like men before they understand themselves well enough to know what that means，” the study reported.

An argument will break down if one of the premises is not true or if the conclusion does not logically follow from them. For example, consider this argument:

The deer population in our state should be preserved. During the hunting season hundreds of deer are killed. Therefore, the hunting season should be discontinued.

To challenge this argument, the state’s wildlife commission might agree with both the major and minor premises but question whether the conclusion follows logically from them. True, the deer population should be preserved; true, deer are killed during the hunting season. However, in a state where deer have no natural enemies, herds become too large for the natural forest vegetation to support them. The overpopulated herds eat the leaves of the young trees, killing the trees, before dying of starvation themselves. The commission might conclude, therefore, that a limited hunting season helps preserve a healthier and more stable population of deer.

People who already agree with you need no persuasion, although a well-argued case for their own point of view is always welcome. But indifferent and doubting people will tend to resist your argument because they have minds of their own. To convince them, you will need to refute(驳斥)opposing arguments.

To give up a position that seems reasonable, the arguer has to see that there is an even more reasonable one. In addition to presenting your own case, review the chief arguments of the other side and explain what you think is wrong with them.

It is the best way to deal with the other side. Often it is useful to summarize the opposing position. Sometimes a better plan is to anticipate objections as you develop your detailed reasons for your argument. Wherever you decide to deal with opposing arguments, do your best to refute them.

As you refute opposition arguments, try to establish common ground with readers who at first do not agree with your views. If you can show that you share their values, they may be able to switch to your position without giving up what they feel is important. For example, to persuade people emotionally opposed to shooting helpless deer, a state wildlife commission would have to show that it too cares about preserving deer and does not want them to die needlessly. Having established these values in common, the commission might be able to persuade people that a carefully controlled hunting season is good for the deer population because it prevents starvation caused by over-population. However, if those opposed to hunting want to persuade the commission to ban the hunting season, they would need to show that the commission could achieve its goals by some other means, such as expanding the deer preserve or allowing the deer and the food supply to come into a natural balance.

ChatGPT, a powerful AI chatbot tool, has swept the world in the past months. While it has been dominating social media with its frighteningly good essays, ChatGPT has also caused both excitement and worries in education.

According to a US survey of more than 1,000 students, over 89 percent of them had used ChatGPT to help with a homework task. Some students even got high scores thanks to papers written by ChatGPT.

Some universities and schools have banned the use of ChatGPT, such as public schools in New York City, CNN reported. The move comes out of growing concerns that the tool could make it easier for students to cheat on schoolwork and be used to spread inaccurate (不精确的) information. “While the tool may be able to provide quick and easy answers to questions, it does not build critical-thinking and problem-solving skills, which are essential for academic (学术的) and lifelong success,” Jenna Lyle, said in a statement.

Apart from strict bans, teachers are redesigning their courses in an attempt to block the use of ChatGPT. Some college professors in the US are now including more oral exams and handwritten papers instead of typed ones, The New York Times reported.

However, not all educators are saying “no” to ChatGPT. Some Canadian universities are not planning on banning the tool. Instead, they are working on policies (政策) about its proper usage, for both students and lecturers.

Bhaskar Vira, pro-vice-chancellor for education at University of Cambridge in the UK, said that bans on AI software like ChatGPT are not sensible. “I’m of the opinion that we have to recognise that AI is a tool people will use but then adapt our learning, teaching and examination processes so that we can continue to have integrity (诚信) while recognizing the use of the tool,” he told Varsity, the school newspaper of the university.

Vira’s opinion on ChatGPT is shared by Peter van der Putten, assistant professor at Leiden University in the Netherlands. “It’s there, just like Google is there. You can write it into your policies for stopping cheating but it’s a reality that the tool exists,” he told Sky News.