TOEFL TPO 30 Writing Task 1 Sample: Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they challenge the specific points made in the reading passage.

1.Sub Scores

Task fulfillment: 4 Organization: 4 Coherence and Cohesion: 4 Language Use: 3

2.Estimated Scores

Estimated Score: 25

3.Task completeness

The essay effectively summarizes the points made in the lecture and explains how they challenge the specific points made in the reading passage. However, there is room for improvement in terms of language use and providing more detailed explanations of the points. To improve task fulfillment, consider:

• Using more precise vocabulary to describe the concepts discussed.

• Providing clearer explanations of how each point from the lecture challenges the corresponding point from the reading passage.

Example 1: Instead of "the Greeks cannot find an enormous piece of copper," write "the ancient Greeks did not have access to a single large sheet of copper."

Example 2: Instead of "the fire can then easily spread to the wood," write "once ignited, the pitch would cause a fire that would quickly spread to the wooden parts of the ship."

4.Essay structure and organization

The essay has a clear structure with an introduction, body, and conclusion. Each paragraph focuses on a specific point and includes supporting details. However, there is room for improvement in terms of transitions between ideas and paragraphs. To enhance organization:

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

• Improve paragraph structure by starting with a topic sentence that introduces each main point.

Example 1: Add a transition word at the beginning of a paragraph: "Furthermore, regarding how long it would take to set a ship on fire with a burning mirror..."

Example 2: Rewrite a paragraph's topic sentence for clarity: "Lastly, while flaming arrows were already available as weapons for setting ships on fire, using burning mirrors offered unique advantages."

5. Grammar

In the reading passage, the author proposed three points that supported the fact that the Greeks of Syracuse never built the burning mirror. However, the professor in the listening clearly refuted those three points.

Firstly, the writer said that the Greeks cannot find an enormous piece of copper that can be used to make the mirror. But in the listening, the speaker rebutted by saying the Greeks do not need a single copper, they can use dozens of individual copper to form this mirror. So the Greeks actually do have the ability to make this mirror.

Secondly, the passage claims that the burning mirror will take a long time to set the ships on fire. However, the experiment is not accurate because it only counts the fact where the mirror is igniting the wood on ships. The lecture believes that the Roman ships had a sticky substance which is pitch that can make the ship waterproof. Pitch is much more easiereasier(No 'more' or 'most' before comparatives) to catch on fire and takes only a few seconds, the fire can then easily spread to the wood.

Last but not at least, the reading stated that the Greeks had flaming arrows that can be used to set the ships on fire. On the contrast, the woman in the listening section disagrees by saying the Romans are familiar with the burning arrows and are ready to stop the fire. Flaming arrows are also visible so, so(comma between independent clauses) the Romans had time to prepare for the fire. On the other hand, when the Greeks use the mirror, the Romans will only see the mirror, and they will not see fire coming, so this mirror will be much more surprising and efficient than the arrows.

Section Title: 6. Revised Essay

In the reading passage, the author proposed three points that supported the fact that the Greeks of Syracuse never built the burning mirror. However, the professor in the listening clearly refuted those three points.

Firstly, the writer said that the Greeks cannot find an enormous piece of copper that can be used to make the mirror. But in the listening, the speaker rebutted by saying the Greeks do not need a single copper; they can use dozens of individual copper pieces to form this mirror. So, the Greeks actually do have the ability to make this mirror.

Secondly, the passage claims that the burning mirror will take a long time to set ships on fire. However, this assumption is not accurate because it only considers igniting wood on ships. The lecture contends that Roman ships had a sticky substance called pitch to make them waterproof. Pitch is much easier to catch fire and takes only a few seconds; once ignited, it can easily spread to wood.

Lastly, while reading stated that Greeks had flaming arrows capable of setting ships on fire, in contrast, the woman in listening section disagrees by saying Romans were familiar with burning arrows and prepared to extinguish fires they might cause. Flaming arrows are also visible, giving Romans time to prepare for incoming fire. On the other hand, when Greeks use a mirror, Romans will only see its reflection and not anticipate fire coming from it; thus making this mirror much more surprising and efficient than arrows. (256 words)

In the reading passage, the author proposed three points that supported the fact that the Greeks of Syracuse never built the burning mirror. However, the professor in the listening clearly refuted those three points.

Firstly, the writer said that the Greeks cannot find an enormous piece of copper that can be used to make the mirror. But in the listening, the speaker rebutted by saying the Greeks do not need a single copper, copper (change "copper" to "piece of copper" for clarity); they can use dozens of individual copper pieces to form this mirror. So So, the Greeks actually do have the ability to make this mirror.

Secondly, the passage claims that the burning mirror will take a long time to set the ships on fire. However, the experiment this assumption is not accurate because it only counts the fact where the mirror is considers igniting the wood on ships. ships (change "counts" to "considers" for clarity). The lecture believes that the contends that Roman ships had a sticky substance which called pitch (change "which is pitch that can pitch" to "called pitch" for clarity) to make the ship them waterproof. Pitch is much more easier to catch on fire and takes only a few seconds, the fire seconds; once ignited, it can then easily spread to the wood.

Last but not at least, the Lastly, while reading stated that the Greeks had flaming arrows that can be used to set the capable of setting ships on fire. On the contrast, fire, in contrast (change "on contrast" to "in contrast"), the woman in the listening section disagrees by saying the Romans are were familiar with the burning arrows and are ready to stop the fire. prepared to extinguish fires they might cause. Flaming arrows are also visible so the visible, giving Romans had time to prepare for the incoming fire. On the other hand, when the Greeks use the mirror, the a mirror (add ",") Romans will only see the mirror, and they will its reflection and not see anticipate fire coming, so coming from it; thus making this mirror will be much more surprising and efficient than the arrows.

8. Mind Map

- Introduction
  - Reading passage: Greeks of Syracuse never built the burning mirror
  - Listening passage: Refutes the reading passage's points

- Point 1: Availability of copper
  - Reading: Greeks cannot find an enormous piece of copper
  - Listening: Greeks can use dozens of individual copper pieces to form the mirror

- Point 2: Time to set ships on fire
  - Reading: Burning mirror takes a long time to ignite wood on ships
  - Listening: Roman ships had pitch, which catches fire quickly and spreads to wood

- Point 3: Alternative methods for setting ships on fire
  - Reading: Greeks had flaming arrows
  - Listening: Romans were prepared for flaming arrows; burning mirror is more surprising and efficient

- Conclusion
  - Recap of points refuted by listening passage

9. Key Words

6. Revised Essay

In the reading passage, the author proposed three points that supported the fact that the Greeks of Syracuse never built the burning mirror. However, the professor in the listening clearly refuted those three points.

Firstly, the writer said that the Greeks cannot find an enormous piece of copper that can be used to make the mirror. But in the listening, the speaker rebutted by saying the Greeks do not need a single copper; they can use dozens of individual copper pieces to form this mirror. So, the Greeks actually do have the ability to make this mirror.

Secondly, the passage claims that the burning mirror will take a long time to set ships on fire. However, this assumption is not accurate because it only considers igniting wood on ships. The lecture contends that Roman ships had a sticky substance called pitch to make them waterproof. Pitch is much easier to catch fire and takes only a few seconds; once ignited, it can easily spread to wood.

Lastly, while reading stated that Greeks had flaming arrows capable of setting ships on fire, in contrast, the woman in listening section disagrees by saying Romans were familiar with burning arrows and prepared to extinguish fires they might cause. Flaming arrows are also visible, giving Romans time to prepare for incoming fire. On the other hand, when Greeks use a mirror, Romans will only see its reflection and not anticipate fire coming from it; thus making this mirror much more surprising and efficient than arrows.

1.子项得分 任务完成度：3 组织：3 连贯与衔接：3 语言使用：3

2.预估分数

20. 3.任务完成度

在本篇文章中，作者没有准确地回答了问题。文章内容与阅读和听力材料不匹配，导致文章无法有效地概括听力材料中的观点以及挑战阅读材料的具体论点。为了提高任务完成度，建议重新审查阅读和听力材料，并确保正确理解它们之间的关系。然后，在撰写文章时，请确保准确地总结听力材料中的观点，并说明它们是如何挑战阅读材料中的论点的。

示例1： 错误：本文讨论了关于Voynich手稿起源的三种理论。 正确：本文讨论了关于古希腊人是否使用燃烧镜作为武器的争议。

示例2： 错误：第一个论点涉及Anthony Ascham可能是Voynich手稿的作者。 正确：第一个论点涉及古希腊人是否具备制造燃烧镜所需的技术。

4.文章结构与组织 在本篇文章中，结构和组织方面存在一些问题。首先，引言部分没有明确提出文章的主题。其次，正文段落没有清晰地分析听力材料中的观点以及它们如何挑战阅读材料的论点。为了改进文章结构和组织，请确保在引言部分明确提出文章主题，并在正文段落中详细讨论听力材料中的观点以及它们是如何挑战阅读材料中的论点的。

示例1： 错误：作者提出了三种可能解释Voynich手稿起源的理论。 正确：文章将讨论听力材料中提到的观点，以及它们是如何挑战关于古希腊人是否使用燃烧镜作为武器这一阅读材料中的论点。

示例2： 错误：第一个段落讨论了Anthony Ascham可能是Voynich手稿作者这一观点。 正确：第一个段落讨论了古希腊人是否具备制造燃烧镜所需技术这一听力材料中的观点，以及它是如何挑战阅读材料中关于技术水平不足这一论点的。

5. 语法批改

The author of the passage contends three possible theories to explain the origin of the VoynichVoice(misspelling) manuscript. However, the professor in the lecture casts doubt on the proposed explainationsexplanations(misspelling), pointing out none of the theories is convincing and plausible.

First, the reading claims that the VoynichVoice(misspelling) manuscript might be writternwritten(misspelling) by Anthony AschamAssam(misspelling), who is a physician and botanist, beacausebecause(misspelling) the similarity between the mysterious manuscript and medicinal plants in AschamAssam(misspelling)'s book. Nevertheless, the instructor argues that it's unnecessary for AschamAssam(misspelling) to keep these informationthis information('this' vs. 'these') as secrets. The contents in his book may be valuable and powerful, which should not be transferred into secret codes. Thus, this writtingwriting(misspelling) style in VoynichVoice(misspelling) doesn't fit with AschamAssam(misspelling). Moreover, AschamAssam(misspelling) doesn't have original ideas or newly proposed knowledge. For instance, the herbs in his book are common plants based on well-known knowledge. Therefore, it's unlikely that AschamAssam(misspelling) would produce this secret document.

Second, the passage states that this manuscirptmanuscript(misspelling) might be a fake without real meaning, which might be created by Edward Kelley. Nonetheless, the lecturer argues that although Edward would do some tricky things, it's unnecessary to pay lots of efforts to do such a fake but complex books, which would earn too many rich rewards. It's requires a lot of works with careful preparation to produce such a code. The riches at that time are always fools. It is a waste of time for Edward to spend a lot of time to write such a complex book. He could find simple ways to sell other things for riches as well.

Third, the reading indicates that WilfridWilfred(misspelling) might create this manuscript by himself in order to earn money and fame. However, the speaker refutes this viewpoint by saying that the both ink and the pages are 400 years old based on modern dating methods. Even though the hethe(The you (you)) could use pages with 400 years old age, it's impossible to find 400-years-old ink. He cannot find any way to obatinobtain(misspelling) such kind of ink. Therefore, the manusriptmanuscript(misspelling) is not a fake aniqueunique(misspelling) and this theory is unconvincing.

Section Title: 6.文章修订

The author of the passage presents three arguments to support the idea that the burning mirror is a myth and that the Greeks of Syracuse never built such a device. However, the professor in the lecture challenges these points, providing counterarguments to demonstrate that the burning mirror could have been a practical and effective weapon.

Firstly, the reading claims that ancient Greeks lacked the technological advancements required to create a large, parabolic copper mirror. In contrast, the lecturer explains that they did not need to form a single sheet of copper for this purpose. Instead, they could have assembled dozens of small, flat pieces of polished copper into a parabolic shape. Greek mathematicians were familiar with parabolic properties and could have directed this assembly process.

Secondly, the passage argues that it would take too long for a burning mirror to set ships on fire, rendering it impractical and ineffective. The experiment mentioned in the reading assumes that setting wood ablaze would take ten minutes. However, the lecturer points out that Roman ships were not solely made of wood; they also contained pitch—a sticky substance used to seal spaces between wooden boards—which catches fire quickly. An experiment demonstrated that pitch could be ignited by a burning mirror within seconds and subsequently spread to wood even if the ship was moving.

Lastly, the reading suggests that there was no reason for Greeks to build a burning mirror when they already had flaming arrows as an effective weapon. The lecturer counters this argument by explaining that Roman soldiers were familiar with flaming arrows and prepared to extinguish any fires caused by them. In contrast, burning rays from a mirror would be invisible until suddenly igniting an unobserved area on a ship—making it more surprising and effective than flaming arrows.

In conclusion, despite arguments presented in both passage and lecture regarding Syracuse's alleged use of "burning mirrors," it remains unclear whether such devices were actually employed during ancient naval battles. (329 words)

Revised essay: 7.文章批改

The author of the passage contends three possible theories to explain the origin of the Voynich manuscript. However, the professor in the lecture casts doubt on the proposed explainations, explanations, pointing out that none of the theories is are convincing and plausible.

First, the reading claims that the Voynich manuscript might be writtern have been written by Anthony Ascham, who is a physician and botanist, beacause the because of its similarity between the mysterious manuscript and to medicinal plants in Ascham's book. Nevertheless, the instructor argues that it's it would be unnecessary for Ascham to keep these this information as secrets. secret. The contents in his book may be valuable and powerful, which powerful but should not be transferred into secret codes. Thus, this writting writing style in Voynich doesn't fit with Ascham. Ascham's usual approach. Moreover, Ascham doesn't have original ideas or newly proposed knowledge. For knowledge; for instance, the herbs in his book are common plants based on well-known knowledge. Therefore, it's unlikely that Ascham would produce this secret document.

Second, the passage states that this manuscirpt manuscript might be a fake without real meaning, which might be possibly created by Edward Kelley. Nonetheless, the lecturer argues that although Edward would might do some tricky things, it's it would be unnecessary to pay lots of efforts to do for him to put forth so much effort into creating such a complex but fake but book without many potential rewards. Producing such a code requires a lot of work and careful preparation. The wealthy people at that time were not always fools; it would be a waste of time for Edward to spend so much time writing such a complex books, which would earn too many rich rewards. It's requires a lot of works with careful preparation to produce such a code. The riches at that time are always fools. It is a waste of time for Edward to spend a lot of time to write such a complex book. He book when he could find simple simpler ways to sell other things for riches as well.

Third, the reading indicates that Wilfrid might create have created this manuscript by himself in order to earn money and fame. However, the speaker refutes this viewpoint by saying that the both ink and the pages are 400 years old based on modern dating methods. Even though the he could use pages with 400 years old age, it's it would be impossible to find 400-years-old 400-year-old ink. He cannot find any There is no known way to obatin obtain such kind of ink. Therefore, the manusript manuscript is not a fake anique antique, and this theory is unconvincing.

8. Mind Map

• Introduction

  • Burning mirror myth
  • Passage vs. lecture arguments

• Argument 1: Technological advancements

  • Passage: Greeks lacked technology
  • Lecture: Small, flat copper pieces assembled into parabolic shape

• Argument 2: Time to set ships on fire

  • Passage: Impractical and ineffective, takes too long
  • Lecture: Roman ships contained pitch, ignites quickly with burning mirror

• Argument 3: Flaming arrows vs. burning mirror

  • Passage: No need for burning mirror when flaming arrows were effective
  • Lecture: Burning rays more surprising and effective than flaming arrows

• Conclusion

  • Unclear if burning mirrors were used in ancient naval battles

9. Keywords