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.子项得分 任务完成度：4 组织：3 连贯与衔接：3 语言使用：3

2.预估分数

22. 3.任务完成度

你的文章在总体上回答了问题，但有些地方需要改进。首先，确保你的文章更清晰地解释了听力部分是如何挑战阅读部分的观点。其次，在总结听力部分时，请尽量使用更精确的词汇和表达。

示例1（原文）： First of all, the reading passage mentions that the Greeks didn't have the technology that can make such devices because the burning mirror is so big and the burning mirror has parabolic curvature that the Greek'sGreek technology couldn't manufacture a large copper.

示例1（修改后）： Firstly, the reading passage argues that ancient Greeks lacked the technology to create a burning mirror due to its size and required parabolic curvature. However, the lecture counters this by stating that they could have used multiple smaller copper pieces arranged in a parabolic shape.

示例2（原文）： Finally, the reading passage argues that the burning mirror didn't like a weapon that improved on flaming arrows.

示例2（修改后）： Lastly, while the reading passage claims that a burning mirror wouldn't be an improvement over flaming arrows, the lecture suggests otherwise by explaining how Roman soldiers were familiar with flaming arrows but would be caught off guard by an unseen fire caused by a burning mirror.

4.文章结构与组织 你的文章结构可以改进。尝试使用更清晰的主题句来引导每段，并确保每段只关注一个观点。此外，使用更明确的过渡词和短语来帮助连接段落和想法。

示例1（原文）： Roman navy attacked the Greek port city and the Greeks defended themselves with a weapon called "burning mirror".

示例1（修改后）： The reading passage discusses the idea of a "burning mirror" used by Greeks to defend against the Roman navy attack, but it argues against its feasibility.

示例2（原文）： However, the lecture holds an opposite idea that Greeks didn't need to biuld build such big polished copper.

示例2（修改后）： In contrast, the lecture presents opposing arguments that challenge the reading passage's claims about the burning mirror's impracticality and technological impossibility.

5. 语法批改

RomanThe roman(This rule identifies whether the article 'the' is missing in a sentence.) navy attacked the Greek port city and the Greeks defended themselves with a weapon called "burning mirror". The burning mirror is a polished copper surface, it can focus the sun's rays onto the Roman ship and cause the ship to catch fire, but the reading passage disagrees with that idea. However, the lecture argues with the reading passage. First of allFirst(first of all (first)), the reading passage mentions that the Greeks didn't have the technology that can make such devices because the burning mirror is so big and the burning mirror has parabolic curvature that the Greek'sGreekGreek(misspelling) technology couldn't manufacture a large copper. However, the lecture holds an opposite idea that Greeks didn't need to biuldbuild(misspelling) build such big polished copper. They can use a dozen individual sheets of copper to combine a large burning mirror. Also, the Greek mathematician knew the properties of the parabolic shape. Secondly, the lecture casts doubt authorthe author(This rule identifies whether the article 'the' is missing in a sentence.)'s idea that burning mirror would have taken too long time to set the ships on fire. According to the lecture, in an experiment, if burning mirror focuses on wood, it will take ten minutes to make it burn. However, the ships were not just made of wood, it had other materials. For example, in order to seal the space between wooden boards, they would use sticky material like pitch. The pitch can set on fire in seconds. Finally, the reading passage argues that the burning mirror didn't like a weapon that improved on flaming arrows. However, the lecture challenges the idea that Roman soldiers were familiar with the flaming arrows, so they could get ready for the attack. For the burning mirror, the soldiers could just see a mirror on the ship, and suddenly the ship caught on fire. It is more effective and supervised.

Section Title: 6.文章修订

The essay discusses the use of a "burning mirror" as a weapon by the Greeks to defend against the Roman navy's attack on their port city. The reading passage casts doubt on the existence of such a device, while the lecture presents counterarguments supporting its feasibility.

Firstly, the reading passage claims that ancient Greek technology was not advanced enough to manufacture a large, parabolic copper mirror. However, the lecture counters this by stating that Greeks could have assembled multiple smaller polished copper pieces into a parabolic shape, which would function as a large burning mirror. Furthermore, Greek mathematicians were knowledgeable about parabolic properties and could have directed this assembly process.

Secondly, the reading passage argues that it would take too long for a burning mirror to set ships on fire. The lecture challenges this assertion by explaining that although focusing sunlight on wood takes ten minutes to ignite it, Roman ships were not solely made of wood. They also contained pitch—a sticky substance used to seal spaces between wooden boards—which can catch fire in seconds when exposed to concentrated sunlight from a burning mirror. Consequently, this would make the burning mirror an effective weapon.

Lastly, the reading passage contends that there was no need for Greeks to develop a burning mirror since they already had flaming arrows as weapons. In contrast, the lecture explains that Roman soldiers were familiar with flaming arrows and could prepare for such attacks. However, with a burning mirror, soldiers would only see its reflection until suddenly an unobserved part of their ship caught fire. This element of surprise made the burning mirror more effective than flaming arrows in combat situations. (278 words)

The essay discusses the use of a "burning mirror" as a weapon by the Greeks to defend against the Roman navy attacked the Greek navy's attack on their port city and the (changed to clarify the subject of the essay). The reading passage casts doubt on the existence of such a device, while the lecture presents counterarguments supporting its feasibility.

Firstly, the reading passage claims that ancient Greek technology was not advanced enough to manufacture a large, parabolic copper mirror. However, the lecture counters this by stating that Greeks defended themselves with a weapon called "burning mirror". The burning mirror is a could have assembled multiple smaller polished copper surface, it can focus the sun's rays onto the Roman ship pieces into a parabolic shape (clarified that multiple smaller pieces were used), which would function as a large burning mirror. Furthermore, Greek mathematicians were knowledgeable about parabolic properties and cause the ship to catch fire, but could have directed this assembly process.

Secondly, the reading passage disagrees with that idea. However, the lecture argues with the reading passage. ¶ First of all, the reading passage mentions that the Greeks didn't have the technology that can make such devices because the burning mirror is so big and the burning mirror has parabolic curvature that the Greek'sGreek technology couldn't manufacture a large copper. However, the lecture holds an opposite idea that Greeks didn't need to biuld build such big polished copper. They can use a dozen individual sheets of copper to combine a large burning mirror. Also, the Greek mathematician knew the properties of the parabolic shape. ¶ Secondly, the lecture casts doubt author's idea that burning mirror that it would have taken take too long time for a burning mirror to set the ships on fire. According to the lecture, in an experiment, if burning mirror focuses The lecture challenges this assertion by explaining that although focusing sunlight on wood, it will take wood takes ten minutes to make it burn. However, the ignite it, Roman ships were not just solely made of wood, it had other materials. For example, in order wood (clarified that ships were not only made of wood). They also contained pitch—a sticky substance used to seal the space spaces between wooden boards, they would use sticky material like pitch. The pitch boards—which can set on catch fire in seconds. seconds when exposed to concentrated sunlight from a burning mirror. Consequently, this would make the burning mirror an effective weapon.

Finally, Lastly, the reading passage argues that the contends that there was no need for Greeks to develop a burning mirror didn't like a weapon that improved on since they already had flaming arrows. However, arrows as weapons. In contrast, the lecture challenges the idea explains that Roman soldiers were familiar with the flaming arrows, so they arrows and could get ready prepare for the attack. For the such attacks (clarified why flaming arrows were less effective). However, with a burning mirror, the soldiers could just would only see a mirror on the ship, and its reflection until suddenly the an unobserved part of their ship caught on fire. It is fire (added "unobserved" for clarity). This element of surprise made the burning mirror more effective and supervised.than flaming arrows in combat situations.

8. Mind Map

- Essay Structure
  - Introduction
    - Reading passage doubts existence of burning mirror
    - Lecture presents counterarguments supporting feasibility
  - Body
    - Parabolic copper mirror
      - Reading: Greek technology not advanced enough
      - Lecture: Greeks could assemble smaller pieces into parabolic shape
    - Time to set ships on fire
      - Reading: Burning mirror too slow to ignite ships
      - Lecture: Roman ships contained pitch, which catches fire quickly
    - Need for burning mirror vs. flaming arrows
      - Reading: Greeks already had flaming arrows as weapons
      - Lecture: Burning mirror more effective due to element of surprise

- Points of Lecture:
  1. Greeks could assemble smaller polished copper pieces into a parabolic shape.
  2. Greek mathematicians were knowledgeable about parabolic properties.
  3. Roman ships contained pitch, which catches fire quickly when exposed to concentrated sunlight.
  4. Burning mirror more effective than flaming arrows due to element of surprise.

9. Keywords

1.Sub Scores

• Task fulfillment: 4

• Organization: 4

• Coherence and Cohesion: 4

• Language Use: 3

2.Estimated Scores

25. 3.Task completeness

The essay does a good job of addressing the specific requirements of the task by summarizing the points made in the lecture and explaining how they challenge the points made in the reading passage. However, there are some areas for improvement. First, ensure that you use proper grammar and sentence structure throughout your essay. Second, try to use more varied vocabulary to demonstrate a wider range of language skills.

Example 1: Original: "His position is that the burning mirror story was actually happened." Improved: "His position is that the burning mirror story actually happened."

Example 2: Original: "Therefore, it's possible to fire the ship in short time by burning mirror." Improved: "Therefore, it's possible to set the ship on fire quickly using a burning mirror."

4.Essay structure and organization The essay has a clear structure with an introduction, body, and conclusion. Each paragraph focuses on a specific point with supporting details from both the reading and listening passages. However, there are some areas for improvement in terms of organization and transitions between ideas.

First, consider using clearer topic sentences at the beginning of each paragraph to introduce your main point. Second, improve transitions between ideas within paragraphs as well as between paragraphs to enhance coherence and cohesion.

Example 1: Original: "According to the reading...Nevertheless, the professor challenges..." Improved: "The reading argues that ancient Greeks lacked advanced technology skills; however, the professor challenges this claim by stating..."

Example 2: Original: "Secondly, the author suggests...On the other hand..." Improved: "While the author suggests that it would be difficult for Greeks to hold a mirror long enough to set ships on fire, the lecturer presents a counterargument by explaining..."

5. Grammar

Both of the reading and the listening are about whether the story of burning mirror is turesure(misspelling). While the author of the article argues that the story is just a myth, the lecturer disputes the claim in the article. His position is that the burning mirror story was actually happened.

According to the reading, (Two consecutive spaces)the technology skills of ancient Greek are not advanced enough. He also notes that it's impossible to have such precise parabolic curvature in ancient world. Nevertheless, the professor challenges the argument by stating that there are areare(Word repetition (e.g. 'will will')) small size of copper sheet exist, so precise parabolic curvature can be created. Also, large mirror can bybuy(I will by (buy) this car) produced by assambleassemble(misspelling) these small sheets together. Thus, Greeks have the ability to produce such a device.

Secondly, the author suggests that there is no way for ancient Greek people to hold the mirror for 10 minutes to fire the wooden ship. He also notes that the Roman ships are unlikely to stay still for longa long(This rule identifies whether the article 'a' is missing in a sentence.) time. On the other hand, the lecturer disagrees that the material is not just wood, but also a sticky material called pitch. He goes on to say that pitch can on fire in seconds, and the fire may sparesspare(Non-infinitive verb after modal verbs) to wood quickly. Therefore, it's possible to fire the ship in short time by burning mirror.

Finally, the writer puts forth the idea that it does not make sense for Greeks to build a weapon like a buringduring(misspelling) mirror since they already have the flaming arrows. By contrast, the speaker (Two consecutive spaces)that it's different for Greeks to see the magic fire appears, and this is a surprising and more effective method that regular flaming arrow weapon cannot replacedbe replaced(it would (be) appreciated). That's why they still choose to use the mirror as the weapon.

Section title: 6. Revised Essay

Both the reading and the listening passages discuss the validity of the burning mirror story. While the author of the article argues that the story is just a myth, the lecturer disputes this claim, asserting that the burning mirror event actually occurred.

According to the reading, ancient Greeks did not possess advanced enough technology to create such a device with a precise parabolic curvature. However, the professor challenges this argument by stating that small-sized copper sheets existed, which could be assembled to create a large mirror with a precise parabolic curvature. Thus, he believes that Greeks had the ability to produce such a device.

Secondly, the author suggests that it would be improbable for ancient Greeks to hold a mirror for 10 minutes to set fire to wooden ships, as Roman ships were unlikely to remain stationary for long periods. Contrarily, the lecturer points out that ships were not solely made of wood but also contained a sticky material called pitch. He explains that pitch can catch fire in seconds and spread quickly to wood. Therefore, it would be possible for a burning mirror to set fire to ships in a short amount of time.

Lastly, the writer proposes that it does not make sense for Greeks to build a weapon like a burning mirror since they already had flaming arrows at their disposal. In contrast, the speaker emphasizes that witnessing an unexpected fire appear would have been surprising and more effective than using regular flaming arrow weapons. This is why they might have chosen to use the burning mirror as their weapon instead. (269 words)

Both of the reading and the listening are about whether the story passages discuss the validity of burning mirror is ture. the burning mirror story. While the author of the article argues that the story is just a myth, the lecturer disputes the claim in the article. His position is that the burning mirror story was this claim, asserting that the burning mirror event actually happened. occurred (revised for clarity).

According to the reading, the reading, ancient Greeks did not possess advanced enough technology skills of ancient Greek are not advanced enough. He also notes that it's impossible to have (revised for natural tone) to create such a device with a precise parabolic curvature in ancient world. Nevertheless, curvature. However, the professor challenges the this argument by stating that there are are small size of small-sized copper sheet exist, so sheets existed (revised for grammar), which could be assembled to create a large mirror with a precise parabolic curvature can be created. Also, large mirror can by produced by assamble these small sheets together. curvature. Thus, he believes that Greeks have had the ability to produce such a device.

Secondly, the author suggests that there is no way it would be improbable (revised for natural tone) for ancient Greek people Greeks to hold the a mirror for 10 minutes to set fire the to wooden ship. He also notes that the ships, as Roman ships are were unlikely to stay still remain stationary for long time. On the other hand, periods. Contrarily, the lecturer disagrees that the material is points out that ships were not just wood, solely made of wood but also contained a sticky material called pitch. pitch (revised for clarity). He goes on to say explains that pitch can on catch fire in seconds, seconds and the spread quickly to wood. Therefore, it would be possible for a burning mirror to set fire may spares to wood quickly. Therefore, it's possible to fire the ship to ships in a short time by burning mirror. amount of time.

Finally, Lastly, the writer puts forth the idea proposes that it does not make sense for Greeks to build a weapon like a buring burning mirror since they already had flaming arrows at their disposal (revised for natural tone). In contrast, the speaker emphasizes that witnessing an unexpected fire appear would have the flaming arrows. By contrast, the speaker that it's different for Greeks to see the magic fire appears, and this is a been surprising and more effective method that than using regular flaming arrow weapon cannot replaced. That's weapons (revised for clarity). This is why they still choose might have chosen to use the burning mirror as the weapon.their weapon instead.

8. Mind Map

- Validity of the burning mirror story
    - Reading passage: Myth
        - Lack of advanced technology
        - Improbability of holding mirror for 10 minutes
        - Presence of flaming arrows as alternative weapon
    - Listening passage: Actual event
        - Existence of small-sized copper sheets
            - Assembly into large parabolic mirror
        - Presence of pitch on ships
            - Quick ignition and spread to wood
        - Surprise factor and effectiveness of burning mirror weapon

9. Key Words

1.Sub Scores

Task fulfillment: 4 Organization: 4 Coherence and Cohesion: 4 Language Use: 3

2.Estimated Scores

Estimated Score: 25

3.Task completeness

The essay effectively summarizes the points made in the lecture and explains how they challenge the specific points made in the reading passage. However, there is room for improvement in terms of language use and providing more detailed explanations of the points. To improve task fulfillment, consider:

• Using more precise vocabulary to describe the concepts discussed.

• Providing clearer explanations of how each point from the lecture challenges the corresponding point from the reading passage.

Example 1: Instead of "the Greeks cannot find an enormous piece of copper," write "the ancient Greeks did not have access to a single large sheet of copper."

Example 2: Instead of "the fire can then easily spread to the wood," write "once ignited, the pitch would cause a fire that would quickly spread to the wooden parts of the ship."

4.Essay structure and organization

The essay has a clear structure with an introduction, body, and conclusion. Each paragraph focuses on a specific point and includes supporting details. However, there is room for improvement in terms of transitions between ideas and paragraphs. To enhance organization:

• Use clear transition words or phrases to connect ideas within paragraphs.

• Improve paragraph structure by starting with a topic sentence that introduces each main point.

Example 1: Add a transition word at the beginning of a paragraph: "Furthermore, regarding how long it would take to set a ship on fire with a burning mirror..."

Example 2: Rewrite a paragraph's topic sentence for clarity: "Lastly, while flaming arrows were already available as weapons for setting ships on fire, using burning mirrors offered unique advantages."

5. Grammar

In the reading passage, the author proposed three points that supported the fact that the Greeks of Syracuse never built the burning mirror. However, the professor in the listening clearly refuted those three points.

Firstly, the writer said that the Greeks cannot find an enormous piece of copper that can be used to make the mirror. But in the listening, the speaker rebutted by saying the Greeks do not need a single copper, they can use dozens of individual copper to form this mirror. So the Greeks actually do have the ability to make this mirror.

Secondly, the passage claims that the burning mirror will take a long time to set the ships on fire. However, the experiment is not accurate because it only counts the fact where the mirror is igniting the wood on ships. The lecture believes that the Roman ships had a sticky substance which is pitch that can make the ship waterproof. Pitch is much more easiereasier(No 'more' or 'most' before comparatives) to catch on fire and takes only a few seconds, the fire can then easily spread to the wood.

Last but not at least, the reading stated that the Greeks had flaming arrows that can be used to set the ships on fire. On the contrast, the woman in the listening section disagrees by saying the Romans are familiar with the burning arrows and are ready to stop the fire. Flaming arrows are also visible so, so(comma between independent clauses) the Romans had time to prepare for the fire. On the other hand, when the Greeks use the mirror, the Romans will only see the mirror, and they will not see fire coming, so this mirror will be much more surprising and efficient than the arrows.

Section Title: 6. Revised Essay

In the reading passage, the author proposed three points that supported the fact that the Greeks of Syracuse never built the burning mirror. However, the professor in the listening clearly refuted those three points.

Firstly, the writer said that the Greeks cannot find an enormous piece of copper that can be used to make the mirror. But in the listening, the speaker rebutted by saying the Greeks do not need a single copper; they can use dozens of individual copper pieces to form this mirror. So, the Greeks actually do have the ability to make this mirror.

Secondly, the passage claims that the burning mirror will take a long time to set ships on fire. However, this assumption is not accurate because it only considers igniting wood on ships. The lecture contends that Roman ships had a sticky substance called pitch to make them waterproof. Pitch is much easier to catch fire and takes only a few seconds; once ignited, it can easily spread to wood.

Lastly, while reading stated that Greeks had flaming arrows capable of setting ships on fire, in contrast, the woman in listening section disagrees by saying Romans were familiar with burning arrows and prepared to extinguish fires they might cause. Flaming arrows are also visible, giving Romans time to prepare for incoming fire. On the other hand, when Greeks use a mirror, Romans will only see its reflection and not anticipate fire coming from it; thus making this mirror much more surprising and efficient than arrows. (256 words)

In the reading passage, the author proposed three points that supported the fact that the Greeks of Syracuse never built the burning mirror. However, the professor in the listening clearly refuted those three points.

Firstly, the writer said that the Greeks cannot find an enormous piece of copper that can be used to make the mirror. But in the listening, the speaker rebutted by saying the Greeks do not need a single copper, copper (change "copper" to "piece of copper" for clarity); they can use dozens of individual copper pieces to form this mirror. So So, the Greeks actually do have the ability to make this mirror.

Secondly, the passage claims that the burning mirror will take a long time to set the ships on fire. However, the experiment this assumption is not accurate because it only counts the fact where the mirror is considers igniting the wood on ships. ships (change "counts" to "considers" for clarity). The lecture believes that the contends that Roman ships had a sticky substance which called pitch (change "which is pitch that can pitch" to "called pitch" for clarity) to make the ship them waterproof. Pitch is much more easier to catch on fire and takes only a few seconds, the fire seconds; once ignited, it can then easily spread to the wood.

Last but not at least, the Lastly, while reading stated that the Greeks had flaming arrows that can be used to set the capable of setting ships on fire. On the contrast, fire, in contrast (change "on contrast" to "in contrast"), the woman in the listening section disagrees by saying the Romans are were familiar with the burning arrows and are ready to stop the fire. prepared to extinguish fires they might cause. Flaming arrows are also visible so the visible, giving Romans had time to prepare for the incoming fire. On the other hand, when the Greeks use the mirror, the a mirror (add ",") Romans will only see the mirror, and they will its reflection and not see anticipate fire coming, so coming from it; thus making this mirror will be much more surprising and efficient than the arrows.

8. Mind Map

- Introduction
  - Reading passage: Greeks of Syracuse never built the burning mirror
  - Listening passage: Refutes the reading passage's points

- Point 1: Availability of copper
  - Reading: Greeks cannot find an enormous piece of copper
  - Listening: Greeks can use dozens of individual copper pieces to form the mirror

- Point 2: Time to set ships on fire
  - Reading: Burning mirror takes a long time to ignite wood on ships
  - Listening: Roman ships had pitch, which catches fire quickly and spreads to wood

- Point 3: Alternative methods for setting ships on fire
  - Reading: Greeks had flaming arrows
  - Listening: Romans were prepared for flaming arrows; burning mirror is more surprising and efficient

- Conclusion
  - Recap of points refuted by listening passage

9. Key Words

6. Revised Essay

In the reading passage, the author proposed three points that supported the fact that the Greeks of Syracuse never built the burning mirror. However, the professor in the listening clearly refuted those three points.

Firstly, the writer said that the Greeks cannot find an enormous piece of copper that can be used to make the mirror. But in the listening, the speaker rebutted by saying the Greeks do not need a single copper; they can use dozens of individual copper pieces to form this mirror. So, the Greeks actually do have the ability to make this mirror.

Secondly, the passage claims that the burning mirror will take a long time to set ships on fire. However, this assumption is not accurate because it only considers igniting wood on ships. The lecture contends that Roman ships had a sticky substance called pitch to make them waterproof. Pitch is much easier to catch fire and takes only a few seconds; once ignited, it can easily spread to wood.

Lastly, while reading stated that Greeks had flaming arrows capable of setting ships on fire, in contrast, the woman in listening section disagrees by saying Romans were familiar with burning arrows and prepared to extinguish fires they might cause. Flaming arrows are also visible, giving Romans time to prepare for incoming fire. On the other hand, when Greeks use a mirror, Romans will only see its reflection and not anticipate fire coming from it; thus making this mirror much more surprising and efficient than arrows.