TOEFL TPO 41 Writing Task 1 Sample: Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they challenge the specific arguments presented in the reading passage.

1.子项得分 Task fulfillment: 4 Organization: 4 Coherence and Cohesion: 4 Language Use: 3

2.预估分数 Estimated Score: 25

3.任务完成度 整体来说，文章在任务完成度方面表现较好，成功地概括了听力材料中的观点，并对阅读材料中的论点进行了反驳。然而，文章在语言使用方面有待提高。建议在练习写作时多关注语法和词汇的准确性，以提高整体质量。

Example 1: Original: "The lecturer, on the other hand, contradicts this idea by pointing out that other materials like mercury are already safely recycled over 50 years for a long time." Improved: "The lecturer, on the other hand, contradicts this idea by pointing out that other materials, such as mercury, have been safely recycled for over 50 years without any issues."

Example 2: Original: "Therefore, increasing costs should not be considered as a severe problem rather than it probably cannot have negative effect on consumers." Improved: "Therefore, the increase in costs should not be considered a severe problem since it is unlikely to have a significant negative impact on consumers."

4.文章结构与组织 The essay has a clear structure with an introduction, body paragraphs addressing each point from the lecture and reading passage, and a conclusion. However, some transitions between ideas and paragraphs could be improved to enhance coherence and cohesion.

Suggestions for improvement:

• Use clearer transition words or phrases to connect ideas within paragraphs.

• Make sure each paragraph focuses on one specific point from the lecture and reading passage.

Example 1: Original: "First, the professor casts doubt on what is stated in the reading materials that companies already are required to use liner to prevent coal ash from leaking into soil and contaminating the surrounding environment." Improved: "Firstly, the professor casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that companies are already required to use liners to prevent coal ash from leaking into the soil and contaminating the surrounding environment."

Example 2: Original: "Moving on to the second reason, the article suggests that consumers may concern that recycled coal ash also influence other products like building material such as concrete and bricks." Improved: "Regarding the second reason, the article suggests that consumers may be concerned about recycled coal ash affecting other products, such as building materials like concrete and bricks."

5. 语法批改

The reading passage presents several different reasons proposed byas to why companies discussingargue that the government should not implement stricter regulations for handinghandling and storing coal ash. In the lecture, however,However, the professor challenges each of these reasons presented in the reading passage with three specific counterarguments as support. counterarguments. First, the professor casts doubt on what is statedquestions the claim in the reading materials that companies already are required to use linerliners to prevent coal ash from leaking into soil and contaminating the surrounding environment. She asserts that theeven with the use of liners, old pondponds or landfills still suffer damage, including underground water and drinking water contaminated by theby coal ash. Moving on to the second reason, the article suggests that consumers may concernbe concerned that recycled coal ash also influencecould affect other products like building materialproducts, such as concrete and bricks. The lecturer, on the other hand,however, contradicts this idea by pointing out that other materialsmaterials, like mercury are alreadymercury, have been safely recycled over 50 years for a long time. years. The last statement given byin the reading proposes that power companies would increaseincur increased costs in disposal and handling due to sticker regulations are conducted by government.stricter regulations. This idea responsible for increasing cost is negated by the listening, which claims that although this regulation needs to spend aboutmay cost around 50 billion dollars, consumers' bills only increase one percent if it can beby an average to everyof 1% per individual. Therefore, increasingthe increase in costs should not be considered as a severesignificant problem rather than it probably cannotand is unlikely to have negative effect on consumers.

Section Title: 6.文章修订

The reading passage presents several arguments against implementing stricter regulations for handling and storing coal ash, while the lecture challenges each of these arguments with specific counterpoints.

Firstly, the reading states that companies are already required to use liners to prevent coal ash from leaking into the soil and contaminating the surrounding environment. However, the professor highlights that this requirement only applies to new landfills or ponds, leaving older disposal sites vulnerable to damage, such as groundwater and drinking water contamination caused by coal ash.

Secondly, the passage suggests that stricter regulations might discourage consumers from using recycled coal ash products like building materials such as concrete and bricks. Contradicting this idea, the lecturer points out that other hazardous materials like mercury have been safely recycled for over 50 years without causing significant consumer concerns.

Lastly, the reading proposes that power companies would face increased costs in disposal and handling due to stricter regulations implemented by the government. The listening counters this argument by stating that although these regulations would cost around $15 billion, it would only result in a one percent increase in consumers' bills when averaged out. Therefore, increased costs should not be considered a significant problem as they are unlikely to have a negative impact on consumers. (213 words)

Revised essay: Section Title: 7.文章批改

The reading passage presents several different reasons proposed by companies discussing government should not implement arguments against implementing stricter regulations for handing handling and storing coal ash. In the lecture, however, the professor ash, while the lecture challenges each of these reasons presented in arguments with specific counterpoints (changed to maintain the original paragraph structure).

Firstly, the reading passage with three specific counterarguments as support. ¶ First, the professor casts doubt on what is stated in the reading materials states that companies are already are required to use liner liners to prevent coal ash from leaking into the soil and contaminating the surrounding environment. She asserts that the old pond However, the professor highlights that this requirement only applies to new landfills or landfills still suffer ponds, leaving older disposal sites vulnerable to damage, including underground water such as groundwater and drinking water contaminated by the coal ash. ¶ Moving on to the second reason, the article contamination caused by coal ash (explanation added for clarity).

Secondly, the passage suggests that stricter regulations might discourage consumers may concern that from using recycled coal ash also influence other products like building material materials such as concrete and bricks. The lecturer, on the Contradicting this idea, the lecturer points out that other hand, contradicts this idea by pointing out that other hazardous materials like mercury are already have been safely recycled for over 50 years for a long time. ¶ The last statement given by without causing significant consumer concerns (clarified by specifying "hazardous materials" and adjusting sentence structure).

Lastly, the reading proposes that power companies would increase face increased costs in disposal and handling due to sticker regulations are conducted by stricter regulations implemented by the government. This idea responsible for increasing The listening counters this argument by stating that although these regulations would cost is negated by the listening, which claims that although this regulation needs to spend about 50 around $15 billion dollars, (corrected number), it would only result in a one percent increase in consumers' bills only increase one percent if it can be average to every individual. when averaged out. Therefore, increasing increased costs should not be considered a significant problem as they are unlikely to have a severe problem rather than it probably cannot have negative effect impact on consumers.consumers (rephrased for better flow).

8. Mind Map

• Essay Structure
  • Introduction
    • Reading passage arguments
    • Lecture counterpoints
  • Argument 1: Liners for coal ash storage
    • Reading: Companies already use liners
    • Lecture: Requirement only for new landfills, older sites vulnerable
  • Argument 2: Consumer discouragement from recycled coal ash products
    • Reading: Stricter regulations might discourage use of recycled products
    • Lecture: Hazardous materials like mercury safely recycled without concerns
  • Argument 3: Increased costs for power companies and consumers
    • Reading: Stricter regulations would increase costs for disposal and handling
    • Lecture: Costs only result in a one percent increase in consumer bills

9. Keywords