TOEFL TPO 48 Writing Task 1 Sample: Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific methods proposed in the reading passage.

1.子项得分 任务完成度：3 组织：3 连贯性和衔接：3 语言使用：2

2.预估分数

20. 3.任务完成度

虽然你的文章涵盖了阅读和听力材料中的观点，但在解释这些观点时，你需要更详细地描述它们之间的关系。例如，在讨论农药问题时，可以详细说明农民如何受到不公平待遇。此外，在讨论真菌治疗方案时，可以强调治疗过程中存在的问题以及为什么这些问题使得该方法不切实际。

改进建议：

• 在描述听力材料中的观点时，请确保更详细地解释它们是如何质疑阅读材料中提出的方法的。

• 使用更多具体的例子来支持你的论点。

示例：

1. 在讨论农药问题时，可以这样写：“教授认为，如果限制农民在靠近濒危青蛙种群区域使用农药，那么这些农民将处于严重劣势。他们可能会损失更多作物，并且产量会低于其他使用农药的竞争对手。”

2. 在讨论真菌治疗方案时，可以这样写：“教授指出，这种治疗方法需要逐个捕捉和治疗青蛙，这在大规模应用中非常困难。此外，这些治疗方法无法阻止青蛙将真菌传给后代，因此需要对每一代青蛙进行反复治疗。因此，实施这些治疗方法将非常复杂且昂贵。”

4.文章结构与组织 你的文章具有基本的结构（引言、正文和结论），但在组织上还有改进的空间。例如，在引言部分，请确保更明确地概述文章的主题和目的。在正文部分，请确保每段落都集中讨论一个特定观点，并提供支持细节。

改进建议：

• 在引言中更明确地概述文章的主题和目的。

• 在正文段落中使用更清晰的主题句来引导读者了解每段落的焦点。

示例：

1. 引言可以这样写：“阅读材料提出了三种解决青蛙种群下降问题的方法，然而听力材料对这些方法提出了质疑。本文将总结听力材料中提到的观点，并解释它们是如何质疑阅读材料中提出的方法的。”

2. 在正文段落中，可以这样写：“首先，阅读材料认为禁止农民在青蛙栖息地附近使用有害农药可以减少对青蛙的危害。然而，教授提出了一个与此相反的观点。”

5. 语法批改

The reading passage and the lecture both talk about the declines or extinct of the frogs numbers and some solutions to protect the frogs. Despite that, the professor casts doubt on every single point the reading makes. In the lecture, he uses three specific points to support his idea.

To begin with, (Two consecutive spaces)the reading passage reckons that chemical pesticides harms the frogs, by spreading from farmland into frogs habitats so, so(comma between independent clauses) farmers should not use the pesticides in the farming.However However(Missing space between sentences), the professor argues that will harm the benefits of farmers, which indicates that if farmers stop to use the pesticides to protect their crops, they will.cannot Cannot(Lowercase word after word and no space in between) compare with other farmers who usesuse(Agreement of relative pronoun 'who' and verb) the pesticides that have more quantities crops and yields. Therefore, the professor cannot give a nod to the term of the first point.

What's more, the reading passage claims that fungus causes the decline of the frogs by the frogs skins absorbing the within the fungus water so, so(comma between independent clauses) the researchers treats the individual frogs one by one, whereas the professor argues that is too difficult and uneconomically. He elaborates on this by mentioning that all of theall the(all of the (all the)) frogs around the world is too muchmany('much' + countable noun, e.g. 'much (many) children') numbers, it is difficult to capture everyone and treats them. Besides, we cannot prevent fungus throughout the habitat and spread into more areas. Apparently, the professor argument disproves its counterpart in the reading.

Last but not least, the reading passage conceives that the frogs habitats were threatened by the human activities so, so(comma between independent clauses) we need to protect their key habitats such as lakes and marshes. The professor, on the other hand, debate that the environment of the frogs habitats is not the key factors of the frogsfrogs'(Possessive apostrophe error) extinction. In order to substantiate with the point, he states that the global warming is the key reason caused the habitatshabitat's(This rule identifies whether there is a missing apostrophe before an 's'.) disapeardisappear(misspelling). Thus, the professor demonstrates what asserted in the reading is specious.

In conclusion, the professor impressively proves the fundamental argument about the decline of the frogs population is unconvincing.

Section Title: 6.文章修订

The reading passage and the lecture both discuss the decline in frog populations and propose solutions to protect them. However, the professor casts doubt on each point made in the reading, using three specific arguments to support his stance.

Firstly, the reading passage suggests that chemical pesticides harm frogs by spreading from farmland into their habitats, and thus farmers should avoid using them. The professor counters this by arguing that such a restriction would negatively impact farmers' competitiveness. He explains that if farmers cease using pesticides to protect their crops, they will be unable to compete with other farmers who continue to use them and consequently produce higher crop yields. Therefore, the professor disagrees with the first point made in the reading.

Secondly, the reading claims that a fungus contributes to frog population decline as it affects their skin's ability to absorb water. It proposes that researchers treat individual frogs one by one. The professor, however, argues that this approach is both difficult and uneconomical. He elaborates by stating that capturing and treating every frog worldwide is an impractical task due to their vast numbers. Additionally, he points out that we cannot prevent fungus from spreading throughout habitats and into new areas. Evidently, the professor's argument refutes the corresponding point in the reading.

Lastly, the reading posits that human activities threaten frog habitats; therefore, we need to protect key habitats such as lakes and marshes. The professor disputes this claim by asserting that environmental factors are not primarily responsible for frog extinction. To substantiate his point, he states that global warming is actually causing habitat loss and disappearance rather than human activities near these habitats. Thus, he demonstrates that what was asserted in the reading is unfounded.

In conclusion, the professor effectively proves that the fundamental argument regarding frog population decline presented in the reading is unconvincing. (310 words)

Revised essay: The reading passage and the lecture both talk about the declines discuss the decline in frog populations and propose solutions to protect them (Changed "declines or extinct of the frogs numbers and some solutions to protect the frogs. Despite that, extinct" to "decline" for clarity and proper grammar). However, the professor casts doubt on every single each point the reading makes. In the lecture, he uses made in the reading, using three specific points arguments to support his idea. stance.

To begin with, Firstly, the reading passage reckons suggests that chemical pesticides harms the frogs, harm frogs by spreading from farmland into frogs habitats so their habitats, and thus farmers should not use the pesticides in the farming.However, the professor argues that will harm the benefits avoid using them (Changed "harms" to "harm" for subject-verb agreement). The professor counters this by arguing that such a restriction would negatively impact farmers' competitiveness (Changed "benefits of farmers, which indicates farmers" to "farmers' competitiveness" for clarity). He explains that if farmers stop to use the cease using pesticides to protect their crops, they will.cannot compare will be unable to compete with other farmers who uses the pesticides that have more quantities crops and continue to use them and consequently produce higher crop yields. Therefore, the professor cannot give disagrees with the first point made in the reading.

Secondly, the reading claims that a nod to the term of the first point. ¶ What's more, the reading passage claims that fungus causes the contributes to frog population decline of the frogs by the frogs skins absorbing the within the fungus as it affects their skin's ability to absorb water so the (Rephrased sentence for clarity). It proposes that researchers treats the treat individual frogs one by one, whereas the professor one. The professor, however, argues that is too this approach is both difficult and uneconomically. uneconomical (Changed "uneconomically" to "uneconomical"). He elaborates on this by mentioning that all of the frogs around the world is too much numbers, it is difficult to capture everyone and treats them. Besides, by stating that capturing and treating every frog worldwide is an impractical task due to their vast numbers. Additionally, he points out that we cannot prevent fungus from spreading throughout the habitat and spread habitats and into more new areas. Apparently, the professor Evidently, the professor's argument disproves its counterpart refutes the corresponding point in the reading.

Last but not least, the reading passage conceives that the frogs habitats were threatened by the Lastly, the reading posits that human activities so threaten frog habitats; therefore, we need to protect their key habitats such as lakes and marshes. The professor, on the other hand, debate that the professor disputes this claim by asserting that environmental factors are not primarily responsible for frog extinction (Changed "the environment of the frogs habitats is not the key factors of the frogs extinction. In order to of...extinction" for clarity). To substantiate with the his point, he states that the global warming is the key reason caused the habitats disapear. actually causing habitat loss and disappearance rather than human activities near these habitats. Thus, the professor he demonstrates that what was asserted in the reading is specious. unfounded (Changed "specious" to "unfounded" for a more appropriate word choice).

In conclusion, the professor impressively effectively proves that the fundamental argument about the regarding frog population decline of the frogs population is unconvincing.presented in the reading is unconvincing (Changed "impressively" to "effectively" for a more neutral tone).

---

8. Mindmap

1. Introduction

   • Decline in frog populations
   • Reading passage and lecture discussion

2. Chemical Pesticides

   • Reading: Harmful to frogs, farmers should avoid using them
   • Lecture: Negative impact on farmers' competitiveness, disagreement with reading

3. Fungus Problem

   • Reading: Contributes to decline, treat individual frogs
   • Lecture: Difficult and uneconomical approach, refutes reading's point

4. Human Activities and Habitat Protection

   • Reading: Threaten habitats, protect key areas like lakes and marshes
   • Lecture: Environmental factors not primarily responsible, global warming as the main cause, disagreement with reading

5. Conclusion

   • Professor's effective counterarguments

9. Keywords