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: 3

• Organization: 3

• Coherence and Cohesion: 3

• Language Use: 2

2.Estimated Scores

20. 3.Task completeness

The essay does address the specific requirements of the task, summarizing the points made in the lecture and explaining how they challenge the points made in the reading passage. However, there is room for improvement in terms of clarity and language use. To improve task fulfillment, consider rephrasing some sentences to make them clearer and more concise.

Example 1: Original: "The listening acknowledges that it is impossible to manufacture such an enormous mirror." Improved: "The lecture acknowledges that creating a single large mirror would be impossible."

Example 2: Original: "This listening argues that roman was already familiar with the original weapon and being wary about it while the new invention wouldn't be known and were able to start a fire on an unobvious locale." Improved: "The lecture argues that Romans were already familiar with flaming arrows, making burning mirrors a more surprising and effective weapon."

4.Essay structure and organization The essay has a clear structure with an introduction, body, and conclusion. However, some paragraphs could be better organized to focus on specific points. Additionally, transitions between ideas could be improved to enhance coherence.

Example 1: Original: "First of all, the capacity of ignite a ship..." Improved: "Firstly, regarding the technological capability of creating a burning mirror..."

Example 2: Original: "Secondly, the passage announces that a burning mirror need such a long time to set a ship on fire." Improved: "Secondly, while the passage claims that burning mirrors would take too long to set ships on fire..."

5. 语法批改

The reading declared that the weapon which defeated the Roman is fictional, by providing the following reasons and listen opposeto oppose(This rule identifies whether the preposition 'to' is missing in a sentence.) them.

First of allFirst(first of all (first)), the capacity ofto(This rule identifies wrong preposition usage.) ignite a ship, a several meters long mirror is integral, but Greece is not technologically advanced enough to make such equipment. The listening acknowledges that it is impossible to manufacture such an enormous mirror. However, the listening doubt this by explaining that the Greeks could produce a dozen of separated mirrors which also worked if they were put in proper size.

Secondly, the passage announces that a burning mirror need such a long time to set a ship on fire. An experiment has shown that it cost 10 minutes for a burning mirror to set the wooden object on firefire,(This rule identifies whether commas are missing in a sentence.) and that object need to be stationary.The The(Missing space between sentences) listening against this idea by saying there is an object called pitch connecting wooden pieces which is easy to catch fire in seconds and the fire would spread widely on the broad.

Ultimately, the reading indicate that the burning mirror isn't an improvement of another weapon named flaming arrow, so this is dispensable for Greek to contrive a new weapon. This listening argues that roman was already familiar with the original weapon and being wary about itit,(This rule identifies whether commas are missing in a sentence.) while the new invention wouldn't be known and were able to start a fire on an unobvious locale.

Section Title: 6. Revised Essay

The reading asserts that the burning mirror, a weapon allegedly used by the Greeks to defeat the Romans, is merely a myth. It provides several reasons to support this claim, which are challenged by the points made in the listening.

Firstly, the reading contends that the ancient Greeks lacked the technological advancements necessary to create a large, parabolic mirror capable of igniting ships. In contrast, the listening disputes this by explaining that instead of producing one massive mirror, the Greeks could have assembled multiple smaller mirrors into a parabolic shape to achieve the same effect.

Secondly, the passage argues that a burning mirror would require an impractical amount of time to set a ship ablaze. It cites an experiment where it took ten minutes for a burning mirror to ignite a stationary wooden object. The listening counters this argument by mentioning pitch - a substance used in boat construction that catches fire rapidly. It suggests that once ignited by a burning mirror within seconds, pitch would quickly spread fire throughout the ship regardless of its movement.

Lastly, the reading posits that there was no need for Greeks to develop a burning mirror as they already had flaming arrows as an effective weapon. However, the listening refutes this notion by stating that Romans were familiar with flaming arrows and prepared to extinguish any fires they caused. In contrast, burning mirrors would have been an unfamiliar and stealthier weapon capable of starting fires in less noticeable locations on ships, making them more effective than flaming arrows. (259 words)

Section Title: 7. Essay Grading

The reading declared asserts that the weapon which defeated the Roman Romans is fictional, by providing the following reasons and listen oppose them. (The reading asserts that the burning mirror, a weapon allegedly used by the Greeks to defeat the Romans, is merely a myth. It provides several reasons to support this claim, which are challenged by the points made in the listening.)

First of all, the capacity of ignite a ship, a several meters long mirror is integral, but Greece is not technologically advanced enough to make such equipment. (Firstly, the reading contends that the ancient Greeks lacked the technological advancements necessary to create a large, parabolic mirror capable of igniting ships.) The listening acknowledges that it is impossible to manufacture such an enormous mirror. However, the listening doubt this by explaining that the Greeks could produce a dozen of separated mirrors which also worked if they were put in proper size. (In contrast, the listening disputes this by explaining that instead of producing one massive mirror, the Greeks could have assembled multiple smaller mirrors into a parabolic shape to achieve the same effect.)

Secondly, the passage announces that a burning mirror need such a long time to set a ship on fire. An experiment has shown that it cost 10 minutes for a burning mirror to set the wooden object on fire and that object need to be stationary.The stationary.(Secondly, the passage argues that a burning mirror would require an impractical amount of time to set a ship ablaze. It cites an experiment where it took ten minutes for a burning mirror to ignite a stationary wooden object.) The listening against this idea by saying there is an object called pitch connecting wooden pieces which is easy to catch fire in seconds and the fire would spread widely on the broad. (The listening counters this argument by mentioning pitch - a substance used in boat construction that catches fire rapidly. It suggests that once ignited by a burning mirror within seconds, pitch would quickly spread fire throughout the ship regardless of its movement.)

Ultimately, the reading indicate that the burning mirror isn't an improvement of another weapon named flaming arrow, so this is dispensable for Greek to contrive a new weapon. ¶ (Lastly, the reading posits that there was no need for Greeks to develop a burning mirror as they already had flaming arrows as an effective weapon.) This listening argues that roman was already familiar with the original weapon and being wary about it while the new invention wouldn't be known and were able to start a fire on an unobvious locale.locale. (However, the listening refutes this notion by stating that Romans were familiar with flaming arrows and prepared to extinguish any fires they caused. In contrast, burning mirrors would have been an unfamiliar and stealthier weapon capable of starting fires in less noticeable locations on ships, making them more effective than flaming arrows.)

---

8. Mind Map

- Burning Mirror Myth
    - Reading's Arguments
        1. Lack of technology for large parabolic mirror
        2. Impractical time to ignite ships
        3. Flaming arrows as an effective weapon
    - Listening's Counterarguments
        1. Multiple smaller mirrors assembled into parabolic shape
        2. Rapid ignition of pitch on ships
        3. Burning mirrors as stealthier and more effective than flaming arrows

9. Key Words

Section Title: 6. Revised Essay

The reading asserts that the burning mirror, a weapon allegedly used by the Greeks to defeat the Romans, is merely a myth. It provides several reasons to support this claim, which are challenged by the points made in the listening.

Firstly, the reading contends that the ancient Greeks lacked the technological advancements necessary to create a large, parabolic mirror capable of igniting ships. In contrast, the listening disputes this by explaining that instead of producing one massive mirror, the Greeks could have assembled multiple smaller mirrors into a parabolic shape to achieve the same effect.

Secondly, the passage argues that a burning mirror would require an impractical amount of time to set a ship ablaze. It cites an experiment where it took ten minutes for a burning mirror to ignite a stationary wooden object. The listening counters this argument by mentioning pitch - a substance used in boat construction that catches fire rapidly. It suggests that once ignited by a burning mirror within seconds, pitch would quickly spread fire throughout the ship regardless of its movement.

Lastly, the reading posits that there was no need for Greeks to develop a burning mirror as they already had flaming arrows as an effective weapon. However, the listening refutes this notion by stating that Romans were familiar with flaming arrows and prepared to extinguish any fires they caused. In contrast, burning mirrors would have been an unfamiliar and stealthier weapon capable of starting fires in less noticeable locations on ships, making them more effective than flaming arrows.