TOEFL TPO -1 Academic Discussion Writing Sample: This week, we’ll be discussing ways to address air pollution. One idea is introducing environmental taxes on air travel. Such taxes, also referred to as ecoological 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 either, cleaner modes of transportation. Do you think there should be an environmental tax on air travel? Why or why not?

1. 子项得分

• Relevance and Contribution to Discussion: 4.0

• Clarity and Elaboration of Viewpoint: 3.5

• Language Use and Grammar: 3.5

2. 预估分数

• 22

3. 任务完成度

此篇文章在回答问题方面做得不错，但仍有改进的空间。首先，你可以更详细地阐述为什么对乘客征收环保税不公平。其次，在论证方面，你可以给出更多具体的例子来支持你的观点。最后，在语言运用和语法方面，尽量避免使用过于复杂的句子结构，并注意正确使用标点符号。

示例1：在讨论环保税对长途旅行者的影响时，可以具体说明一下这种税收可能导致的经济负担。 示例2：在提到其他交通方式时，可以举一些实际的例子，如火车、汽车等，并说明它们相对于飞机的环保优势。

4. 文章结构与组织

文章整体结构清晰，但在段落划分和过渡方面还有待加强。建议将观点和论据分成不同段落，并使用恰当的过渡词汇来连接各个部分。此外，在文章开头部分加入引言以引出主题，以及在结尾部分进行总结，将使文章更加完整。

示例1：在开头部分，可以加入一句引言，如：“关于是否应该对航空旅行征收环保税，人们的观点各异。” 示例2：在论述不同观点时，可以使用过渡词汇来连接不同段落，如：“然而，在另一方面，有人认为……”

5. 语法批改

I concur with Claire’s perspective that an environmental tax on air travel should not be implemented, as additional taxes on air travel will do few to solve the problem.Morever Morever(Missing space between sentences), I would like to emphasize that it will cost more money for the air-planeairplane(Hyphenated words: air-plane) passengers. Although people travel with a short distance are able to opt for an alternative way with both advantages of secure and cost-saving to reach the destination, regretfully, for those who must travel with a long distance home and abroad such as flying from Shanghai to Xinjiang, or formfrom(Detects potentially wrong usage of "form") China to America have no choice but to afford the expensive fee, which is not fair for them to take the burden of the additional fee in order to protect the environment.As As(Missing space between sentences) a result, I firmly believe that it not a prudent approach to impose the responsibility on some individuals.

Display title: 6 文章修订

I concur with Claire's perspective that implementing an environmental tax on air travel may not be the most effective solution to address air pollution. Moreover, I would like to emphasize that such a tax could disproportionately burden passengers financially. While individuals traveling short distances may have the option to choose more environmentally friendly and cost-effective modes of transportation, those who must embark on long-distance journeys, such as from Shanghai to Xinjiang or from China to America, have no alternative but to bear the increased costs. It seems unjust for these travelers to shoulder the responsibility of protecting the environment through additional fees. Consequently, I firmly believe that placing this burden solely on individuals is not a prudent approach in our quest for environmental sustainability. (128 words)

I concur with Claire’s Claire's perspective that implementing an environmental tax on air travel should may not be implemented, as additional taxes on the most effective solution to address air travel will do few to solve the problem.Morever, pollution (reason: rephrased for clarity and conciseness). Moreover, I would like to emphasize that it will cost such a tax could disproportionately burden passengers financially (reason: rephrased for clarity and natural tone). While individuals traveling short distances may have the option to choose more money environmentally friendly and cost-effective modes of transportation (reason: rephrased for the air-plane passengers. Although people travel with a short distance are able to opt for an alternative way with both advantages of secure clarity and cost-saving to reach the destination, regretfully, for conciseness), those who must travel with a long distance home and abroad embark on long-distance journeys, such as flying from Shanghai to Xinjiang, Xinjiang or form from China to America America, have no choice alternative but to afford bear the expensive fee, which is not fair increased costs (reason: rephrased for them clarity and natural tone). It seems unjust for these travelers to take shoulder the burden responsibility of protecting the environment through additional fee in order to protect the environment.As a result, fees (reason: rephrased for clarity and conciseness). Consequently, I firmly believe that it placing this burden solely on individuals is not a prudent approach to impose the responsibility on some individuals.in our quest for environmental sustainability (reason: rephrased for clarity and natural tone).

8 思维导图

- Environmental tax on air travel
    - Not the most effective solution
        - Air pollution
    - Disproportionate financial burden
        - Short-distance travelers
            - Alternative transportation options
        - Long-distance travelers
            - No alternatives available
            - Increased costs
    - Unjust responsibility on individuals
        - Protecting the environment through fees
    - Quest for environmental sustainability
        - Not a prudent approach to solely rely on individuals

9 关键词