TOEFL TPO 14 Academic Discussion Writing Sample: Your professor is teaching a class on career readiness. Write a post responding to the professor’s question.

1. 子项得分

• Relevance and Contribution to Discussion: 5

• Clarity and Elaboration of Viewpoint: 4.5

• Language Use and Grammar: 4.5

2. 预估分数

• 28

3. 任务完成度

整体来说，你的文章回答了问题并且提供了有力的论据。但是，为了更好地完成任务，你可以尝试在论述中添加更多具体的例子和细节。例如，在讨论大公司的优势时，可以提到一些具体的大公司和它们为员工提供的福利。

示例1：在谷歌这样的大公司工作，员工可以享受到免费健身房、健康保险等各种福利。 示例2：在亚马逊这样的大公司工作，员工有机会参与各种培训项目和职业发展计划。

4. 文章结构与组织

你的文章结构清晰，包括引言、正文和结论。然而，在段落之间添加一些过渡词或短语可以使文章更加流畅。此外，在正文部分中，你可以尝试使用主题句来引导每个段落，并确保每个段落都集中讨论一个特定观点。

建议1：在两个观点之间添加过渡词或短语。 示例：尽管安德鲁提出了一个相关的观点，但是他忽略了一些关键事实和逻辑。

建议2：使用主题句来引导每个段落。 示例：首先，大公司通常拥有更好的基础设施和资源，这对于新员工来说是非常有益的。

5. 语法批改

In my opinion, it is better for a new graduate to work for a large company. I totally concur with Kelly's argument that established companies are typically well-known and competitive, and I would like to add that big companies boast better infrastructures. For instance, in some of the best internet companies, such as Google and Amazon, not only can workers have access to thousands of useful softwarespieces of software(softwares → pieces of software), but also they can utilize the best devices to enhance their working efficiency. By working in big companies, workers can obtain, deliver and store information in the online system, which offers unparalleled convenience to all the employees.

While Andrew raises a relevant point that working for a start-up company may stimulate workers' excitement and interest, some essential facts and logic are being left out of consideration. After all, in the small companies, the quality of technology and infrastructures may not be satisfactory. To make things worse, these type of occupations are not stable, for it is risky that the company will close and workers have to lose their jobs. Therefore, Andrew's reason is not strong enough to outweigh the benefits of working for an established company.

Display title: 6 文章修订

In my opinion, it is more advantageous for a recent graduate to begin their career at a large, established company. I wholeheartedly agree with Kelly's assertion that such companies generally possess a strong reputation and competitive edge. Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that these organizations often provide superior infrastructure and resources. For example, employees at renowned tech giants like Google and Amazon have access to cutting-edge software and equipment, which significantly enhances their work efficiency. By working in these well-established companies, employees can seamlessly obtain, deliver, and store information within the online system, offering unparalleled convenience.

While Andrew presents a valid argument that start-up companies may foster excitement and innovation among employees, certain critical factors are overlooked in his reasoning. Smaller companies may lack the advanced technology and infrastructure found in larger organizations. Moreover, job stability is often compromised in start-ups due to the inherent risks associated with their business model; employees may face unemployment if the company fails. Consequently, Andrew's argument does not sufficiently counterbalance the numerous benefits of working for an established company. (180 words)

In my opinion, it is more advantageous (better -> more advantageous: "more advantageous" is a clearer and more specific expression of the benefits) for a recent graduate (new graduate to work for a large -> recent graduate: "recent graduate" is a more commonly used term) to begin their career at a large, established company. I totally concur wholeheartedly agree with Kelly's argument that established assertion that such companies are typically well-known and competitive, and generally possess a strong reputation and competitive edge. Furthermore, I would like to add that big companies boast emphasize that these organizations often provide superior infrastructure and resources (better infrastructures. infrastructures -> superior infrastructure and resources: "infrastructure" should be singular, and adding "resources" makes the statement more comprehensive). For instance, in some of the best internet companies, such as example, employees at renowned tech giants like Google and Amazon, not only can workers Amazon have access to cutting-edge software (thousands of useful softwares, but also they can utilize the softwares -> cutting-edge software: this phrase better emphasizes the quality of the software available) and equipment (best devices to enhance -> equipment: "equipment" is a broader term that encompasses various tools), which significantly enhances their working work efficiency. By working in big these well-established companies, workers employees can seamlessly obtain, deliver deliver, and store information in within the online system, which offers offering unparalleled convenience to all the employees. convenience.

While Andrew raises a relevant point that working for a presents a valid argument that start-up companies may foster excitement and innovation among employees, certain critical factors are overlooked in his reasoning. Smaller companies may lack the advanced technology and infrastructure found in larger organizations. Moreover, job stability is often compromised in start-ups due to the inherent risks associated with their business model; employees may face unemployment if the company may stimulate workers' excitement and interest, some essential facts and logic are being left out of consideration. After all, in the small companies, the quality of technology and infrastructures may not be satisfactory. To make things worse, these type of occupations are not stable, for fails (it is risky that the company will close and workers have to lose their jobs. Therefore, jobs -> employees may face unemployment if the company fails: this rephrasing clarifies the potential consequences for workers). Consequently, Andrew's reason is argument does not sufficiently counterbalance (not strong enough to outweigh the -> does not sufficiently counterbalance: this phrase better conveys the idea that Andrew's argument does not negate the benefits of working for an established company) the numerous benefits of working for an established company.

8 思维导图

- Advantages of large companies
  - Strong reputation
  - Competitive edge
  - Superior infrastructure and resources
    - Access to cutting-edge software and equipment
    - Enhanced work efficiency
    - Seamless information management

- Counterargument: Start-up companies
  - Excitement and innovation
  - Lacking advanced technology and infrastructure
  - Job stability concerns

- Conclusion: Benefits of established companies outweigh start-up risks

9 关键词

6 文章修订

In my opinion, it is more advantageous for a recent graduate to begin their career at a large, established company. I wholeheartedly agree with Kelly's assertion that such companies generally possess a strong reputation and competitive edge. Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that these organizations often provide superior infrastructure and resources. For example, employees at renowned tech giants like Google and Amazon have access to cutting-edge software and equipment, which significantly enhances their work efficiency. By working in these well-established companies, employees can seamlessly obtain, deliver, and store information within the online system, offering unparalleled convenience.

While Andrew presents a valid argument that start-up companies may foster excitement and innovation among employees, certain critical factors are overlooked in his reasoning. Smaller companies may lack the advanced technology and infrastructure found in larger organizations. Moreover, job stability is often compromised in start-ups due to the inherent risks associated with their business model; employees may face unemployment if the company fails. Consequently, Andrew's argument does not sufficiently counterbalance the numerous benefits of working for an established company.