TOEFL TPO -1 Writing Task 1 Sample: Directions: You have 20 minutes to plan and write your response. Your response will be judged on the basis of the quality of your writing and on how well youresponse presents the points in the lecture and their relationship to the reading passage. Typically, an effective response will be 150 to 225 words.

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

2.预估分数 Estimated Score: 22

3.任务完成度 你的文章基本上涵盖了阅读和听力材料中的要点，但在论述过程中有些重复，可以考虑简化。同时，需要注意在总结教授观点时更加明确地表达出对阅读材料观点的反驳。

示例1（原文）：On the contrary, the professor challenges the assertion of the reading passage, arguing that these three methods do not work well. 示例1（修改）：The professor refutes the reading passage's claims by presenting evidence that these three methods are ineffective in controlling cheatgrass.

示例2（原文）：However, the professor contradicts this point, contending that cheatgrass have resistance of this fungal parasite. 示例2（修改）：Conversely, the professor argues that cheatgrass has developed resistance to this fungal parasite, rendering it an ineffective solution.

4.文章结构与组织 文章的结构需要改进。首先，在引言部分可以简要介绍一下背景信息，例如提到cheatgrass对生态系统的影响。此外，在正文部分，每个段落都应该有一个明确的主题句来引导读者理解段落讨论的内容。最后，在结论部分可以总结一下教授对阅读材料观点的反驳，并指出哪种方法可能更有效。

示例1（原文）：The reading passage asserts three solutions to deal with the cheatgrass problem. 示例1（修改）：The reading passage proposes three solutions to address the ecological threat posed by cheatgrass, an invasive plant species.

示例2（原文）：First, according to the reading passage, one appealing way is to encourage animals such as cattle to eat cheatgrass. 示例2（修改）：Firstly, the reading passage suggests that promoting grazing by animals like cattle could help reduce cheatgrass populations.

5. 语法批改

The reading passage asserts three solutions to deal with the cheatgrasswheatgrass(misspelling) problem. On the contrary, the professor challenges the assertion of the reading passage ,,(Use of whitespace before comma and before/after parentheses) arguing that these three methods do not work well. First, according to the reading passage, one appealing way is to encourage animals such as cattle to eat cheatgrasswheatgrass(misspelling). If grazers were released in areas in which cheatgrasswheatgrass(misspelling) is prosperprospered(Agreement: 'been' or 'was' + past tense), the quantity of cheatgrasswheatgrass(misspelling) would be diminished. Nevertheless, the professor points out that this method will result opposite effect, the quantity of native plants will decrease. Since cheatgrasswheatgrass(misspelling) were not the grasersgraders(misspelling)'(Unpaired braces, brackets, quotation marks and similar symbols) preferrencepreference(misspelling), the released grasersgraders(misspelling) will eat other native plants first. They eat cheatgrasswheatgrass(misspelling) only after eaten other plant. Second, the reading passage proposes that they can eliminate cheatgrasswheatgrass(misspelling) buyby(buy (by) + gerund verb) using controlled fires to burn the cheatgrasswheatgrass(misspelling). Because cheatgrasswheatgrass(misspelling) is more flammable than other plant. Burning it can make space for native grasses to develop. Nonetheless, the professor holds that this way not means cheatgrasswheatgrass(misspelling) would not come back quickly. The seed of cheatgrasswheatgrass(misspelling) can germinate even after few years. The controlled fires will push the seed down into the ground. Then the seed spread, more cheatgrasswheatgrass(misspelling) grow. Third, the reading passage states that import a fungal parasite that only attacks cheatgrasswheatgrass(misspelling) can retretretreat(misspelling) the growth of cheatgrasswheatgrass(misspelling). This parasite is preventprevented(Agreement: 'been' or 'was' + past tense) cheatgrasswheatgrass(misspelling) well in Europe and Asia, introducing it to North American can decline the spread of cheatgrasswheatgrass(misspelling). However, the professor contradicts this point, contending that cheatgrass havecheatgrass has(Plural verb after 'this' or 'that') resistance ofto(This rule identifies wrong preposition usage.) this fungal parasite. CheatgrassWheatgrass(misspelling) grows with it for thousanda thousand(Numeral (dozen, hundred, thousand, million) without a determiner or a number) years. It is only harmharmed(Agreement: 'been' or 'was' + past tense) the sick and weak cheatgrasswheatgrass(misspelling), introducing it is not efficient.

Section Title: 6.文章修订

The reading passage presents three solutions to address the cheatgrass problem, while the professor disputes their effectiveness.

Firstly, the reading passage suggests that encouraging animals such as cattle to consume cheatgrass could reduce its quantity. If grazers were introduced in areas where cheatgrass thrives, it would be diminished. However, the professor argues that this method would produce the opposite effect, leading to a decrease in native plants. Since grazers do not prefer cheatgrass, they would consume other native plants first and only eat cheatgrass after depleting other options.

Secondly, the reading passage proposes using controlled fires to eliminate cheatgrass, as it is more flammable than other plants. Burning it could create space for native grasses to grow. Nevertheless, the professor contends that this method does not guarantee that cheatgrass will not return quickly. Cheatgrass seeds can germinate even after several years, and controlled fires may push these seeds deeper into the ground. Consequently, when these seeds spread, more cheatgrass will grow.

Lastly, the reading passage asserts that importing a fungal parasite that specifically targets cheatgrass could inhibit its growth. This parasite has successfully prevented cheatgrass proliferation in Europe and Asia; thus, introducing it to North America could curb its spread. However, the professor refutes this claim by stating that cheatgrass has developed resistance against this fungal parasite over thousands of years of coexistence. The fungus only harms sick and weak cheatgrass plants while healthy ones remain unaffected; therefore, introducing it would be inefficient in controlling cheatgrass populations. (250 words)

The reading passage asserts presents three solutions to deal with the cheatgrass problem. On the contrary, address the cheatgrass problem, while the professor challenges the assertion of disputes their effectiveness (The original sentence was too long and unclear, so it was rephrased for clarity and conciseness).

Firstly, the reading passage , arguing that these three methods do not work well. ¶ First, according to the reading passage, one appealing way is to encourage suggests that encouraging animals such as cattle to eat cheatgrass. consume cheatgrass could reduce its quantity (Changed "one appealing way" to "suggests" for clarity). If grazers were released introduced in areas in which cheatgrass is prosper, the quantity of cheatgrass where cheatgrass thrives, it would be diminished. Nevertheless, However, the professor points out argues that this method will result would produce the opposite effect, the quantity of effect (Changed "result opposite effect" to "produce the opposite effect" for better phrasing), leading to a decrease in native plants will decrease. plants. Since cheatgrass were grazers do not the grasers' preferrence, the released grasers will eat prefer cheatgrass, they would consume other native plants first. They first and only eat cheatgrass only after eaten depleting other plant. options (Clarified the sequence of events).

Second, Secondly, the reading passage proposes that they can eliminate cheatgrass buy using controlled fires to burn the cheatgrass. Because cheatgrass eliminate cheatgrass, as it is more flammable than other plant. plants. Burning it can make could create space for native grasses to develop. Nonetheless, grow. Nevertheless, the professor holds contends that this way method does not means cheatgrass would guarantee that cheatgrass will not come back quickly. The seed of cheatgrass return quickly (Rephrased for clarity). Cheatgrass seeds can germinate even after few years. The several years, and controlled fires will may push the seed down these seeds deeper into the ground. Then the seed Consequently, when these seeds spread, more cheatgrass grow. will grow (Clarified cause and effect).

Third, Lastly, the reading passage states that import asserts that importing a fungal parasite that only attacks cheatgrass can retret the specifically targets cheatgrass could inhibit its growth of cheatgrass. (Rephrased for clarity). This parasite is prevent cheatgrass well has successfully prevented cheatgrass proliferation in Europe and Asia, Asia; thus, introducing it to North American can decline the spread of cheatgrass. America could curb its spread. However, the professor contradicts refutes this point, contending that cheatgrass have claim by stating that cheatgrass has developed resistance of against this fungal parasite. Cheatgrass grows with it for thousand years. It is parasite over thousands of years of coexistence (Clarified reasoning). The fungus only harm the harms sick and weak cheatgrass, cheatgrass plants while healthy ones remain unaffected; therefore, introducing it is not efficient.would be inefficient in controlling cheatgrass populations (Clarified the conclusion).

8. Mind Map

• Introduction

  • Reading passage: 3 solutions to cheatgrass problem
  • Professor: disputes effectiveness

• Solution 1: Grazing Animals

  • Reading: Introduce grazers to consume cheatgrass
  • Professor: Grazers prefer native plants, cheatgrass remains

• Solution 2: Controlled Fires

  • Reading: Burn cheatgrass, create space for native grasses
  • Professor: Cheatgrass seeds germinate after years, fires may worsen the problem

• Solution 3: Fungal Parasite

  • Reading: Import fungus to target cheatgrass growth
  • Professor: Cheatgrass resistant, fungus inefficient

9. Keywords

Section Title: 6. Article Revision

The reading passage presents three solutions to address the cheatgrass problem, while the professor disputes their effectiveness.

Firstly, the reading passage suggests that encouraging animals such as cattle to consume cheatgrass could reduce its quantity. If grazers were introduced in areas where cheatgrass thrives, it would be diminished. However, the professor argues that this method would produce the opposite effect, leading to a decrease in native plants. Since grazers do not prefer cheatgrass, they would consume other native plants first and only eat cheatgrass after depleting other options.

Secondly, the reading passage proposes using controlled fires to eliminate cheatgrass, as it is more flammable than other plants. Burning it could create space for native grasses to grow. Nevertheless, the professor contends that this method does not guarantee that cheatgrass will not return quickly. Cheatgrass seeds can germinate even after several years, and controlled fires may push these seeds deeper into the ground. Consequently, when these seeds spread, more cheatgrass will grow.

Lastly, the reading passage asserts that importing a fungal parasite that specifically targets cheatgrass could inhibit its growth. This parasite has successfully prevented cheatgrass proliferation in Europe and Asia; thus, introducing it to North America could curb its spread. However, the professor refutes this claim by stating that cheatgrass has developed resistance against this fungal parasite over thousands of years of coexistence. The fungus only harms sick and weak cheatgrass plants while healthy ones remain unaffected; therefore, introducing it would be inefficient in controlling cheatgrass populations.