TOEFLIELTS
日本語
All Samples

TOEFL Academic Discussion Writing Sample: Your professor is teaching a class on environmental science. Write a post responding to the professor's question. In your response you should do the following. Express and support your opinion. Make a contribution to the discussion in your own words. An effective response will contain at least 100words.

AIによる評価とフィードバック付きの実際のユーザー投稿

1件のユーザー投稿サンプルがあります

無料練習を始める

タスク概要

Professor

This week, we'll be discussing ways to address airpollution.One idea is introducing environmental taxes on air travel, Such taxes also referred to as ecological taxes or green taxes, are extra charges that get added to the price of airplane tickets. Money collected from these taxes could be invested in environmentally friendly technologies or in promoting other cleaner modes of transportation. Do you think there should be an environmental tax on air travel? Why or why not?

Andrew

We should impose environmental taxes on air travel. These taxes might encourage people to find cheaper, more eco-friendly ways to get places. In my country, many people use planes to fly a short distance because flights are relatively cheap, when they could just as easily take a less polluting form of transportation.

Claire

Additional taxes on air travel will do little to solve the problem of air pollution. Airplane tickets would become more expensive, punishing passengers without incentivizing airlines to become more environmentally friendly. The airlines should pay the price to protect the environment, not their customers.

ユーザーサンプルと評価結果

1

ユーザーサンプル #1

With the advent of the surge of air pollution all over the world, a blazing debate concerning whether we should introduce the encironmental tax into o...

スコア
26

ユーザーサンプル

With the advent of the surge of air pollution all over the world, a blazing debate concerning whether we should introduce the encironmental tax into on air travel has increasingly come to force.Speaking of this theme, I have to say I wholeheartly second with Claire on this one for the following reasons. To begin with, I opine that we are supposed to attach much importance to enhance the awareness of protecting the environment of resident rather that using the air tax to intimidate them. Government should not equate introducing the air tax with the antedote of pollution. Only by raising publc awareness about environmental protection can we achieve our goal. Besides, being circumspect about air tax, which is a onerous financial task, can help us avoid significant opportunity cost. If we decide to introduce the air tax, we need to spend a huge amount of manpower, material and financial resources to formulate relevant policies. As Claire says, why not putting these resources into find where the pollution generate the most and how can we sap the grievous impact on environment? That is the whole point. In conclusion, despite the seemingly plausible solution Andrew proposes, I believes Claire’s idea is more sagacious.

評価結果

1. 子项得分

  • Relevance and Contribution to Discussion: 4.5

  • Clarity and Elaboration of Viewpoint: 4.0

  • Language Use and Grammar: 4.0

2. 预估分数

26. 3 任务完成度

这篇文章在任务完成度方面表现良好,你明确表达了自己的观点,并且对Andrew和Claire的观点进行了比较。但是,可以考虑在支持观点时提供更具体的例子或数据。此外,尝试使用更多的同义词来避免重复使用相同的词汇。

改进建议示例:

  • 在支持Claire观点时,可以提供一个具体的例子,说明环境税可能对乘客产生负面影响。

  • 使用不同的词汇来描述“环境税”,例如“绿色税收”或“生态税”。

4. 文章结构与组织

文章结构和组织方面基本上做得很好,有清晰的引言、主体和结论。然而,在段落之间加入一些过渡性词语可以使文章更连贯。同时,在主体段落中保持一个明确的焦点,并确保每个段落都有足够的细节来支持你的观点。

改进建议示例:

  • 在第二段和第三段之间加入过渡性词语,如“此外”或“然而”。

  • 在主体段落中更详细地解释为什么环境税可能导致机会成本过高,例如提供一个具体的例子或数据。

5. 语法批改

With the advent of the surge of air pollution all over the world, a blazing debate concerning whether we should introduce the encironmentalenvironmental(misspelling) tax into on air travel has increasingly come to force.Speaking Speaking(Missing space between sentences) of this theme, I have to say I wholeheartlywholeheartedly(misspelling) second with Claire on this one for the following reasons. To begin with, I opine that we are supposed to attach much importance to enhance the awareness of protecting the environment of resident rather thatthan(Detects potentially wrong usage of "that") using the air tax to intimidate them. Government should not equate introducing the air tax with the antedoteantidote(misspelling) of pollution. Only by raising publcpublic(misspelling) awareness about environmental protection can we achieve our goal. Besides, being circumspect about air tax, which is aan(Use of 'a' vs. 'an') onerous financial task, can help us avoid significant opportunity cost. If we decide to introduce the air tax, we need to spend a huge amount of manpower, material and financial resources to formulate relevant policies. As Claire says, why not putting these resources into find where the pollution generategenerates(Agreement: Mass/singular noun + non-third-person verb) the most and, and(comma between independent clauses) how can we sap the grievous impact on environment? That is the whole point. In conclusion, despite the seemingly plausible solution Andrew proposes, I believesbelieve(Agreement error: Third-person verb with a non-third-person pronoun) Claire’s idea is more sagacious.

Title: 6 文章修订

The ongoing global surge in air pollution has sparked a heated debate regarding the implementation of environmental taxes on air travel. After considering both perspectives presented by Andrew and Claire, I find myself in agreement with Claire's argument for the following reasons.

Firstly, it is crucial to prioritize raising public awareness about environmental protection rather than using air taxes as a deterrent. The government should not view the introduction of such taxes as a panacea for pollution. Achieving our environmental goals can only be accomplished through increased understanding and collective efforts from the public.

Secondly, exercising caution when considering air taxes, which would impose a significant financial burden, can help us avoid substantial opportunity costs. Implementing these taxes would require considerable manpower, material, and financial resources to develop relevant policies. As Claire suggests, why not allocate these resources towards identifying major sources of pollution and developing strategies to mitigate their detrimental impact on the environment? This approach seems more effective and targeted.

In light of these points, I believe that Claire's perspective offers a more prudent course of action compared to Andrew's proposal. Focusing on raising environmental awareness and addressing pollution at its source will likely yield better results in our fight against air pollution. (208 words)

Title: 7 文章批改

With the advent of the surge of air pollution all over the world, world (rephrased for clarity), a blazing debate concerning whether we should introduce the encironmental environmental tax into on air travel (corrected spelling and rephrased for better flow) has increasingly come to force.Speaking force. Speaking of this theme, I have to say I wholeheartly wholeheartedly second (corrected spelling) with Claire on this one for the following reasons.

To begin with, I opine that we are supposed to attach much importance to enhance (rephrased for clarity) the awareness of protecting the environment of resident rather that using the air tax to intimidate them. them (rephrased for better flow). Government should not equate introducing the air tax with the antedote antidote (corrected spelling) of pollution. Only by raising publc public awareness about environmental protection can we achieve our goal.

Besides, being circumspect about air tax, which is a onerous financial task, can help us avoid significant opportunity cost. If we decide to introduce the air tax, we need to spend a huge amount of manpower, material and financial resources to formulate relevant policies. As Claire says, why not putting these resources into find where (rephrased for better flow) the pollution generate the most and how can we sap (changed word for clarity) the grievous impact on environment? That is the whole point.

In conclusion, despite the seemingly plausible solution Andrew proposes, I believes believe Claire’s idea is more sagacious.sagacious (changed word for consistency).

8 思维导图


- Introduction
  - Air pollution debate
  - Environmental taxes on air travel
  - Agree with Claire's argument

- Point 1: Raising public awareness
  - Prioritize environmental protection education
  - Air taxes not a panacea for pollution
  - Collective efforts from the public

- Point 2: Caution and opportunity costs
  - Financial burden of air taxes
  - Resource allocation for policy development
  - Identifying major pollution sources and mitigation strategies

- Conclusion
  - Claire's perspective more prudent than Andrew's proposal 
  - Focus on raising environmental awareness and addressing pollution at its source 

9 关键词

WordPhonetic SymbolPart of SpeechEnglish DefinitionSimplified Chinese TranslationSample Sentence
surge/sɜːrdʒ/nouna sudden increase or rise激增The ongoing global surge in air pollution has sparked a heated debate.
deterrent/dɪˈtɛrənt/nounsomething that discourages or prevents a certain action威慑物The government should not view the introduction of such taxes as a deterrent for pollution.
panacea/ˌpænəˈsiːə/nouna solution or remedy for all difficulties or diseases灵丹妙药The government should not view the introduction of such taxes as a panacea for pollution.
opportunity cost/əˈpɔrtʃənɪti kɒst/nounthe loss of potential gain from other alternatives机会成本Implementing these taxes would require considerable manpower, material, and financial opportunity costs.
prudent/ˈpruːdnt/adjectiveacting with or showing care and thought for the future谨慎的Claire's perspective offers a more prudent course of action compared to Andrew's proposal.
mitigation/ˌmɪtɪˈɡeɪʃən/nounthe action of reducing the severity, seriousness, or pain缓和,减轻Identifying major sources of pollution and developing strategies to mitigate their impact is important.
detrimental/ˌdetrɪˈmentl/adjectivetending to cause harm有害的Developing strategies to mitigate the detrimental impact on the environment is crucial.
allocate/ˈæləkeɪt/verb/to distribute (resources or duties) for a particular purpose分配/As Claire suggests, why not allocate these resources towards identifying major sources of pollution?
awareness/əˈwernəs//noun/knowledge or perception of a situation or fact/意识/Focusing on raising environmental awareness will likely yield better results in our fight against air pollution.

アカデミック・ディスカッションの採点方法

TOEFLアカデミック・ディスカッションのタスクは、ETS公式の採点基準に基づいて評価されます。AI評価は各回答を複数の観点から分析します。

関連性と貢献度

設問に的確に答え、ディスカッションに意味のある貢献をしているか?

言語使用

文法の正確さ、語彙の幅、文構造の質。

展開と裏付け

具体例と明確な論理によってアイデアが十分に展開されているか?

回答に見られる共通パターン

このタスクに寄せられたユーザー投稿の分析に基づき、受験者の回答に見られる共通パターンを紹介します。

多くの受験者は明確な意見を述べるものの、具体的な裏付け例が不足している。

高評価の回答は、リーディングパッセージや他の参加者の意見に直接言及している。

高得点の回答は、多様な文構造とアカデミックな語彙を使用している。

時間配分は重要な要素であり、急いで書かれた印象の回答は展開の評価が低くなる傾向がある。

学習のヒント

1

書き始める前に設問文を注意深く読み、質問のすべての要素を把握する。

2

回答の中でリーディングパッセージや他の受験者の意見に言及する。

3

主張を裏付けるために具体例を使い、一般論は避ける。

4

120~150語を目安にする。長い回答が必ずしも良いわけではなく、明確さと焦点の方が重要。

5

本番同様の条件で流暢さを養うため、時間を計って(10分間)回答する練習をする。

よくある質問

TOEFLのAcademic Discussionタスクとは何ですか?
TOEFLのAcademic Discussionタスクでは、オンラインの授業ディスカッションに参加することが求められます。教授の質問と他の学生の回答を読んだ上で、約10分以内に自分の意見を述べ、それを裏付ける投稿を作成します。
Academic Discussionタスクはどのように採点されますか?
このタスクは0〜5点の尺度で採点され、ディスカッションとの関連性、言語使用の質(文法、語彙、文構造)、そして具体的な例と論理的な根拠を用いてどれだけ考えを展開・裏付けできているかが評価基準となります。
このページに表示されているユーザーサンプルとは何ですか?
これらは、LingoLeap上でこの問題を練習した実際のTOEFL受験者から提出された回答です。各サンプルは当社のAI採点エンジンによって評価されており、スコアと、強みや改善点に関する詳細なフィードバックが提供されます。
AI評価の精度はどの程度ですか?
LingoLeapのAI評価エンジンは、ETSの公式採点基準をもとにトレーニングされ、人間の採点者のスコアと照合して調整されています。自動採点システムに完璧なものはありませんが、練習用として信頼できるフィードバックを提供し、具体的な改善点を特定するのに役立ちます。
このAcademic Discussionタスクをどうやって練習できますか?
無料のLingoLeapアカウントに登録することで練習できます。まさにこの質問に対する自分の回答を書いて提出すると、文章に関する詳細なフィードバック付きのAI評価をすぐに受け取ることができます。
Academic Discussionの回答はどのくらいの長さにすべきですか?
120〜150語を目安にしてください。このタスクでは回答を書くための時間が10分与えられます。より長い回答を書くことよりも、明確さ、具体的な例による意見の裏付け、ディスカッションの文脈への言及を重視してください。

Rooting for Your Goal Score Today!

With LingoLeap, an expert in English exams

Get to Your Dream Score Faster

Try for free now