TOEFL TPO 66 Writing Task 1 Sample: Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they challenge the specific arguments made in the reading passage.

1.子项得分 任务完成度: 4 组织: 4 连贯性和衔接: 4 语言使用: 4

2.预估分数

25. 3.任务完成度

你的文章基本上完成了任务要求，对阅读和听力材料中的观点进行了总结，并解释了听力材料是如何挑战阅读材料中的论点的。但是，有些地方可以进一步改进。例如，在提到反驳论点时，可以更具体地描述听力材料中提到的细节。

示例1（原文）：Therefore, replacing airplanes and helicopters by airships is not practical from an economic perspective. 示例1（修改后）：Therefore, the lecturer argues that replacing airplanes and helicopters with airships may not be as economically practical as the reading suggests due to the costs and challenges associated with lifting gases.

示例2（原文）：This is because, airships could only rise to 14 km in the sky where there are always with strong winds, leading the fast consuming of their fuels. 示例2（修改后）：This is because airships can only rise to 14 km in altitude, where strong winds are present, causing them to consume fuel rapidly in order to maintain their position for telecommunications or surveying functions.

4.文章结构与组织 你的文章结构清晰，包括引言、正文和结论。每个段落都集中讨论了一个特定的观点，并提供了支持细节。然而，在段落之间加入更明确的过渡词或短语可以使文章更连贯。

建议1：在段落开头使用过渡词或短语，以便更清楚地引导读者从一个观点过渡到另一个观点。 示例1（原文）：Secondly, the author claims that airships could both takeoff and lift off vertically... 示例1（修改后）：On the other hand, the author claims that airships could both takeoff and lift off vertically...

建议2：在提到听力材料中的反驳论点时，使用适当的衔接词来强调对比。 示例2（原文）：In contrast, the professor refutes this assertion by stating that it is not the case. 示例2（修改后）：However, the professor refutes this assertion by stating that it is not the case.

5. 语法批改

The reading passage and the lecture both discuss airship, an important air transportation way that was popular before the 1940s. The author of the article presents three possible reasons to support that airship could be used widely in the future. However, the lecturer challenges each reason and provides detailed counterarguments.

Firstly, the writer notes that airships are economic because they use less fuel than airplanes and helicopters. According to the article, engines on airships are only used to change the way horizontally, which are different from those on airplanes and helicopters to be used on both vertical and horizontal ways. Nevertheless, the speaker questions this claim, arguing that gases like hydrogen gases and helium gases are primarily used to maintain airships afloat would cost a lot. Since hydrogen gases are easy getting fire, leading unexpectedto unexpected(This rule identifies whether the preposition 'to' is missing in a sentence.) accidents. Also, it is hard and expensive to produce helium and store it. Therefore, replacing airplanes and helicopters by airships is not practical from an economic perspective.

Secondly, the author claims that airships could both takeoff and lift off vertically, indicating that they could get to some terrain difficult for airplanes. Moreover, the writer states that airships could easily transport a large amount of cargoes which helicopters could not. In contrast, the professor refutes this assertion by stating that it is not the case. For instance, controlling airships to lift off and land on forests area is especially difficult under windy weather. In this case, much time would be wasted for landing safely and slowly without causing damage.

Finally, the reading suggests that airships could replace satellites for telecommunication and military function because they could float and stay at very high altitudes. Besides, without the needs of refueling, airships would cost much less than satellites. On the other hand, the lecturer rebuts by saying that actually airships would cost more. This is because, airships could only rise to 14 km in the sky where there are always with strong winds, leading theto the(This rule identifies whether the preposition 'to' is missing in a sentence.) fast consuming of their fuels. Therefore, airships need to be constantly refueled while floating at high altitudes, which would be quite expensive.

Section Title: 6.文章修订

The reading passage and the lecture both discuss airships, an important air transportation method that was popular before the 1940s. The author of the article presents three possible reasons to support that airships could be used widely in the future. However, the lecturer challenges each reason and provides detailed counterarguments.

Firstly, the writer notes that airships are economical because they use less fuel than airplanes and helicopters. According to the article, engines on airships are only used for horizontal movement, which is different from those on airplanes and helicopters that are used for both vertical and horizontal movement. Nevertheless, the speaker questions this claim, arguing that gases like hydrogen and helium, which are primarily used to maintain airships afloat, would incur significant costs. Since hydrogen is highly flammable, it can lead to unexpected accidents. Also, it is difficult and expensive to produce and store helium. Therefore, replacing airplanes and helicopters with airships is not practical from an economic perspective.

Secondly, the author claims that airships can take off and land vertically, indicating that they could access terrain difficult for airplanes. Moreover, the writer states that airships can easily transport large amounts of cargo which helicopters cannot handle. In contrast, the professor refutes this assertion by stating that it is not as simple as it seems. For instance, controlling airships during takeoff and landing in forested areas is especially difficult under windy weather conditions. In such cases, much time would be wasted for landing safely and slowly without causing damage.

Finally, the reading suggests that airships could replace satellites for telecommunication and military functions because they can float at very high altitudes without needing refueling frequently. This would make them more cost-effective than satellites. On the other hand, the lecturer rebuts this argument by saying that actually airships might end up costing more due to their limitations in altitude capability. Airships can only rise to 14 km in the sky, where strong winds are prevalent, leading to rapid fuel consumption. Therefore, airships need to be constantly refueled while floating at high altitudes, which would be quite expensive. (349 words)

The reading passage and the lecture both discuss airship, airships, an important air transportation way method that was popular before the 1940s. 1940s (changed "way" to "method" for better word choice). The author of the article presents three possible reasons to support that airship airships could be used widely in the future. However, the lecturer challenges each reason and provides detailed counterarguments.

Firstly, the writer notes that airships are economic economical because they use less fuel than airplanes and helicopters. helicopters (changed "economic" to "economical" for proper word usage). According to the article, engines on airships are only used to change for horizontal movement (changed "change the way horizontally, horizontally" to "horizontal movement" for clarity), which are is different from those on airplanes and helicopters to be that are used on for both vertical and horizontal ways. movement. Nevertheless, the speaker questions this claim, arguing that gases like hydrogen gases and helium gases and helium, which are primarily used to maintain airships afloat afloat, would cost a lot. incur significant costs (rephrased sentence for clarity). Since hydrogen gases are easy getting fire, leading is highly flammable, it can lead to unexpected accidents. Also, it is hard difficult and expensive to produce helium and store it. helium. Therefore, replacing airplanes and helicopters by with airships is not practical from an economic perspective.

Secondly, the author claims that airships could both takeoff and lift can take off vertically, and land vertically (changed "lift off" to "land" for proper terminology), indicating that they could get to some access terrain difficult for airplanes. Moreover, the writer states that airships could can easily transport a large amount amounts of cargoes cargo which helicopters could not. cannot handle (changed "cargoes" to "cargo" for correct plural form). In contrast, the professor refutes this assertion by stating that it is not the case. as simple as it seems. For instance, controlling airships to lift off and land on forests area during takeoff and landing in forested areas is especially difficult under windy weather. weather conditions (rephrased sentence for clarity). In this case, such cases, much time would be wasted for landing safely and slowly without causing damage.

Finally, the reading suggests that airships could replace satellites for telecommunication and military function functions because they could can float and stay at very high altitudes. Besides, altitudes without the needs of refueling, airships needing refueling frequently (rephrased sentence for clarity). This would cost much less make them more cost-effective than satellites. On the other hand, the lecturer rebuts this argument by saying that actually airships would cost more. This is because, airships could might end up costing more due to their limitations in altitude capability (rephrased sentence for clarity). Airships can only rise to 14 km in the sky sky, where there strong winds are always with strong winds, prevalent, leading the fast consuming of their fuels. to rapid fuel consumption. Therefore, airships need to be constantly refueled while floating at high altitudes, which would be quite expensive.

8. Mind Map

• Introduction

  • Airships: air transportation method
  • Reading: three reasons for future use
  • Lecture: challenges each reason

• Reason 1: Economical

  • Reading: less fuel consumption than airplanes and helicopters
  • Lecture: hydrogen and helium costs, safety concerns

• Reason 2: Vertical Takeoff and Landing

  • Reading: access difficult terrain, transport large cargo
  • Lecture: challenges in controlling airships, time-consuming

• Reason 3: Replacing Satellites

  • Reading: high altitude floating, cost-effective alternative to satellites
  • Lecture: limitations in altitude capability, increased fuel consumption

9. Keywords

Section Title: 6. Article Revision

The reading passage and the lecture both discuss airships, an important air transportation method that was popular before the 1940s. The author of the article presents three possible reasons to support that airships could be used widely in the future. However, the lecturer challenges each reason and provides detailed counterarguments.

Firstly, the writer notes that airships are economical because they use less fuel than airplanes and helicopters. According to the article, engines on airships are only used for horizontal movement, which is different from those on airplanes and helicopters that are used for both vertical and horizontal movement. Nevertheless, the speaker questions this claim, arguing that gases like hydrogen and helium, which are primarily used to maintain airships afloat, would incur significant costs. Since hydrogen is highly flammable, it can lead to unexpected accidents. Also, it is difficult and expensive to produce and store helium. Therefore, replacing airplanes and helicopters with airships is not practical from an economic perspective.

Secondly, the author claims that airships can take off and land vertically, indicating that they could access terrain difficult for airplanes. Moreover, the writer states that airships can easily transport large amounts of cargo which helicopters cannot handle. In contrast, the professor refutes this assertion by stating that it is not as simple as it seems. For instance, controlling airships during takeoff and landing in forested areas is especially difficult under windy weather conditions. In such cases, much time would be wasted for landing safely and slowly without causing damage.

Finally, the reading suggests that airships could replace satellites for telecommunication and military functions because they can float at very high altitudes without needing refueling frequently. This would make them more cost-effective than satellites. On the other hand, the lecturer rebuts this argument by saying that actually airships might end up costing more due to their limitations in altitude capability. Airships can only rise to 14 km in the sky where strong winds are prevalent, leading to rapid fuel consumption. Therefore, airships need to be constantly refueled while floating at high altitudes, which would be quite expensive.