TOEFL TPO -1 Writing Task 1 Sample:

1.子项得分 任务完成度：4 组织：4 连贯与衔接：4 语言使用：4

2.预估分数

25. 3.任务完成度

整体而言，文章较好地完成了任务要求，对阅读和听力材料中的观点进行了比较和对比。然而，需要注意的是，文章中提到的“英国遗址”和“理查三世”的内容与原始任务无关。为了提高任务完成度，请确保您的论文紧密围绕所给任务进行讨论。

示例1： 错误：The reading passage presents three arguments against the idea that the remains found in England belong to Richard III, while the listening passage provides counterarguments supporting their authenticity. 正确：The reading passage presents three arguments doubting the evidence of Olmec writing on a stone block, while the listening passage provides counterarguments supporting its authenticity.

示例2： 错误：This analysis demonstrates the complexity of understanding historical remains and underscores the need for further research to fully comprehend these factors influencing our knowledge of historical figures like Richard III. 正确：This analysis demonstrates the complexity of understanding ancient artifacts and underscores the need for further research to fully comprehend these factors influencing our knowledge of ancient civilizations like the Olmec Empire.

4.文章结构与组织 文章的结构和组织基本合理，包括引言、正文和结论。每个段落都集中讨论了一个具体观点，并提供了支持细节。然而，在段落之间添加更明确的过渡句将使文章更加连贯。

示例1： 添加过渡句：In response to the first argument, the listening passage offers a different perspective.

示例2： 添加过渡句：Regarding the second point raised in the reading passage, the listening passage provides an alternative explanation.

5. 语法批改

The reading passage presents three arguments against the idea that the remains found in England belong to Richard III, while the listening passage provides counterarguments supporting their authenticity.

Firstly, the reading suggests that DNA evidence from the remains indicates that the man had blond hair, which contradicts Richard III's brown-haired portrayal in his existing portraits. In contrast, the listening passage clarifies that DNA can only accurately determine a person's hair color during childhood. It explains that individuals with blond hair as children may experience darkening of their hair during adolescence, which could have been the case for Richard III.

Secondly, the reading posits that radiocarbon dating of the remains suggests they are too old to be those of Richard IIIIII,(This rule identifies whether commas are missing in a sentence.) since they date back to the first half of the fifteenth century. However, the listening passage disputes this assertion by highlighting that the man's diet, rich in fish and seafood, would have led to lower levels of radioactive carbon in his bones. This factor would cause his bones to appear older than they actually are. Consequently, researchers have established that these remains likely belong to a man who died late in the fifteenth century—coinciding with Richard III's death.

Lastly, regarding wounds or injuries on the remains, the reading states that there is no evidence of healed wounds from previous battles on these bones. It argues that this absence contradicts Richard III's extensive military background and involvement in dangerous fighting. Conversely, the listening passage contends that it is plausible for Richard III to have never sustained significant injuries due to his royal status and access to superior armor. This protective gear would have shielded him effectively during battles, potentially resulting in only minor injuries such as skin bruises—which would not leave marks on his bones.

By examining these counterarguments provided by the listening passage and contrasting them with explanations from the reading passage, it becomes evident that each proposed reason against identifying these remains as belonging to Richard III has limitations or potential flaws. This analysis demonstrates the complexity of understanding historical remains and underscores the need for further research to fully comprehend these factors influencing our knowledge of historical figures like Richard III.

6.文章修订

The reading passage presents three arguments doubting the evidence of Olmec writing on a stone block, while the listening passage provides counterarguments supporting its authenticity.

Firstly, the reading suggests that the stone block is the only Olmec object that appears to bear signs of writing, which is unusual for a culture with a developed writing system. In contrast, the listening passage posits that many other Olmec stone blocks may have originally contained inscriptions, but weathering effects have erased them over time. The discovered block may be a rare example of an object that was protected from damage by a special type of soil, allowing its inscription to survive.

Secondly, the reading posits that the signs on the block may be decorative or religious designs rather than writing since they resemble those found on ancient Olmec artwork. However, the listening passage disputes this assertion by highlighting that the arrangement of signs on the block is typical of written language and not artistic designs. The signs are organized into separate groups and some are repeated several times, characteristics commonly found in written texts but not in decorative designs.

Lastly, regarding the origin of the stone block, the reading states that establishing its true date and origin is difficult since archaeologists were unable to observe its position in the ground. Conversely, the listening passage contends that scientists managed to date it by examining ancient pottery found next to it. The pottery's style indicates it was made during the Olmec period; thus, it can be inferred that the stone block also dates back to this era.

By examining these counterarguments provided by the listening passage and contrasting them with explanations from the reading passage, it becomes evident that each proposed reason against identifying this artifact as evidence of Olmec writing has limitations or potential flaws. This analysis demonstrates how challenging it can be to understand ancient artifacts and underscores how further research is necessary for fully comprehending factors influencing our knowledge of ancient civilizations like the Olmec Empire. (335 words)

7.文章批改

The reading passage presents three arguments against the idea that the remains found in England belong to Richard III, doubting the evidence of Olmec writing on a stone block, while the listening passage provides counterarguments supporting their its authenticity. (Changed "doubting" to emphasize skepticism)

Firstly, the reading suggests that DNA evidence from the remains indicates that the man had blond hair, the stone block is the only Olmec object that appears to bear signs of writing, which contradicts Richard III's brown-haired portrayal in his existing portraits. is unusual for a culture with a developed writing system. In contrast, the listening passage clarifies that DNA can only accurately determine a person's hair color during childhood. It explains that individuals with blond hair as children posits that many other Olmec stone blocks may experience darkening of their hair during adolescence, which could have been the case for Richard III. originally contained inscriptions, but weathering effects have erased them over time. (Replaced "weathering effects" for clarity) The discovered block may be a rare example of an object that was protected from damage by a special type of soil, allowing its inscription to survive.

Secondly, the reading posits that radiocarbon dating of the remains suggests they are too old to the signs on the block may be those of Richard III decorative or religious designs rather than writing since they date back to the first half of the fifteenth century. resemble those found on ancient Olmec artwork. However, the listening passage disputes this assertion by highlighting that the man's diet, rich arrangement of signs on the block is typical of written language and not artistic designs. (Changed "artistic designs" for consistency) The signs are organized into separate groups and some are repeated several times, characteristics commonly found in fish and seafood, would have led to lower levels of radioactive carbon written texts but not in his bones. This factor would cause his bones to appear older than they actually are. Consequently, researchers have established that these remains likely belong to a man who died late in the fifteenth century—coinciding with Richard III's death. decorative designs.

Lastly, regarding wounds or injuries on the remains, the origin of the stone block, the reading states that there is no evidence of healed wounds from previous battles on these bones. It argues that establishing its true date and origin is difficult since archaeologists were unable to observe its position in the ground. Conversely, the listening passage contends that scientists managed to date it by examining ancient pottery found next to it. The pottery's style indicates it was made during the Olmec period; thus, it can be inferred that the stone block also dates back to this absence contradicts Richard III's extensive military background and involvement in dangerous fighting. Conversely, the listening passage contends that it is plausible for Richard III to have never sustained significant injuries due to his royal status and access to superior armor. This protective gear would have shielded him effectively during battles, potentially resulting in only minor injuries such as skin bruises—which would not leave marks on his bones. era. (Changed "inferred" for better word choice)

By examining these counterarguments provided by the listening passage and contrasting them with explanations from the reading passage, it becomes evident that each proposed reason against identifying these remains this artifact as belonging to Richard III evidence of Olmec writing has limitations or potential flaws. This analysis demonstrates the complexity of understanding historical remains how challenging it can be to understand ancient artifacts and underscores the need for how further research to is necessary for fully comprehend these comprehending factors influencing our knowledge of historical figures ancient civilizations like Richard III.the Olmec Empire. (Changed "underscores" for better word choice)

8.思维导图

• Introduction

  • Reading passage doubts
  • Listening passage supports

• Argument 1: No similar objects

  • Reading: only object with signs of writing
  • Listening: weathering effects erased inscriptions on other blocks

• Argument 2: Signs may be decorative

  • Reading: resemblance to Olmec artwork designs
  • Listening: arrangement typical of written language

• Argument 3: Origin and dating

  • Reading: difficult to establish date and origin
  • Listening: ancient pottery found nearby indicates Olmec period

• Conclusion

  • Counterarguments from listening passage
  • Complexity of understanding ancient artifacts

9.关键词