TOEFLIELTS
繁體中文
All Samples

TOEFL Academic Discussion Writing Sample: Your professor is teaching a class on environmental science. Write a post responding to the professor's question. In your response you should do the following. Express and support your opinion. Make a contribution to the discussion in your own words. An effective response will contain at least 100words.

真實考生作答範例,搭配 AI 評分與回饋

目前有 1 篇考生投稿範例

開始免費練習

題型概述

Professor

This week, we'll be discussing ways to address airpollution.One idea is introducing environmental taxes on air travel, Such taxes also referred to as ecological taxes or green taxes, are extra charges that get added to the price of airplane tickets. Money collected from these taxes could be invested in environmentally friendly technologies or in promoting other cleaner modes of transportation. Do you think there should be an environmental tax on air travel? Why or why not?

Andrew

We should impose environmental taxes on air travel. These taxes might encourage people to find cheaper, more eco-friendly ways to get places. In my country, many people use planes to fly a short distance because flights are relatively cheap, when they could just as easily take a less polluting form of transportation.

Claire

Additional taxes on air travel will do little to solve the problem of air pollution. Airplane tickets would become more expensive, punishing passengers without incentivizing airlines to become more environmentally friendly. The airlines should pay the price to protect the environment, not their customers.

考生範例與評分結果

1

考生範例 #1

With the advent of the surge of air pollution all over the world, a blazing debate concerning whether we should introduce the encironmental tax into o...

分數
26

考生範例

With the advent of the surge of air pollution all over the world, a blazing debate concerning whether we should introduce the encironmental tax into on air travel has increasingly come to force.Speaking of this theme, I have to say I wholeheartly second with Claire on this one for the following reasons. To begin with, I opine that we are supposed to attach much importance to enhance the awareness of protecting the environment of resident rather that using the air tax to intimidate them. Government should not equate introducing the air tax with the antedote of pollution. Only by raising publc awareness about environmental protection can we achieve our goal. Besides, being circumspect about air tax, which is a onerous financial task, can help us avoid significant opportunity cost. If we decide to introduce the air tax, we need to spend a huge amount of manpower, material and financial resources to formulate relevant policies. As Claire says, why not putting these resources into find where the pollution generate the most and how can we sap the grievous impact on environment? That is the whole point. In conclusion, despite the seemingly plausible solution Andrew proposes, I believes Claire’s idea is more sagacious.

評分結果

1. 子项得分

  • Relevance and Contribution to Discussion: 4.5

  • Clarity and Elaboration of Viewpoint: 4.0

  • Language Use and Grammar: 4.0

2. 预估分数

26. 3 任务完成度

这篇文章在任务完成度方面表现良好,你明确表达了自己的观点,并且对Andrew和Claire的观点进行了比较。但是,可以考虑在支持观点时提供更具体的例子或数据。此外,尝试使用更多的同义词来避免重复使用相同的词汇。

改进建议示例:

  • 在支持Claire观点时,可以提供一个具体的例子,说明环境税可能对乘客产生负面影响。

  • 使用不同的词汇来描述“环境税”,例如“绿色税收”或“生态税”。

4. 文章结构与组织

文章结构和组织方面基本上做得很好,有清晰的引言、主体和结论。然而,在段落之间加入一些过渡性词语可以使文章更连贯。同时,在主体段落中保持一个明确的焦点,并确保每个段落都有足够的细节来支持你的观点。

改进建议示例:

  • 在第二段和第三段之间加入过渡性词语,如“此外”或“然而”。

  • 在主体段落中更详细地解释为什么环境税可能导致机会成本过高,例如提供一个具体的例子或数据。

5. 语法批改

With the advent of the surge of air pollution all over the world, a blazing debate concerning whether we should introduce the encironmentalenvironmental(misspelling) tax into on air travel has increasingly come to force.Speaking Speaking(Missing space between sentences) of this theme, I have to say I wholeheartlywholeheartedly(misspelling) second with Claire on this one for the following reasons. To begin with, I opine that we are supposed to attach much importance to enhance the awareness of protecting the environment of resident rather thatthan(Detects potentially wrong usage of "that") using the air tax to intimidate them. Government should not equate introducing the air tax with the antedoteantidote(misspelling) of pollution. Only by raising publcpublic(misspelling) awareness about environmental protection can we achieve our goal. Besides, being circumspect about air tax, which is aan(Use of 'a' vs. 'an') onerous financial task, can help us avoid significant opportunity cost. If we decide to introduce the air tax, we need to spend a huge amount of manpower, material and financial resources to formulate relevant policies. As Claire says, why not putting these resources into find where the pollution generategenerates(Agreement: Mass/singular noun + non-third-person verb) the most and, and(comma between independent clauses) how can we sap the grievous impact on environment? That is the whole point. In conclusion, despite the seemingly plausible solution Andrew proposes, I believesbelieve(Agreement error: Third-person verb with a non-third-person pronoun) Claire’s idea is more sagacious.

Title: 6 文章修订

The ongoing global surge in air pollution has sparked a heated debate regarding the implementation of environmental taxes on air travel. After considering both perspectives presented by Andrew and Claire, I find myself in agreement with Claire's argument for the following reasons.

Firstly, it is crucial to prioritize raising public awareness about environmental protection rather than using air taxes as a deterrent. The government should not view the introduction of such taxes as a panacea for pollution. Achieving our environmental goals can only be accomplished through increased understanding and collective efforts from the public.

Secondly, exercising caution when considering air taxes, which would impose a significant financial burden, can help us avoid substantial opportunity costs. Implementing these taxes would require considerable manpower, material, and financial resources to develop relevant policies. As Claire suggests, why not allocate these resources towards identifying major sources of pollution and developing strategies to mitigate their detrimental impact on the environment? This approach seems more effective and targeted.

In light of these points, I believe that Claire's perspective offers a more prudent course of action compared to Andrew's proposal. Focusing on raising environmental awareness and addressing pollution at its source will likely yield better results in our fight against air pollution. (208 words)

Title: 7 文章批改

With the advent of the surge of air pollution all over the world, world (rephrased for clarity), a blazing debate concerning whether we should introduce the encironmental environmental tax into on air travel (corrected spelling and rephrased for better flow) has increasingly come to force.Speaking force. Speaking of this theme, I have to say I wholeheartly wholeheartedly second (corrected spelling) with Claire on this one for the following reasons.

To begin with, I opine that we are supposed to attach much importance to enhance (rephrased for clarity) the awareness of protecting the environment of resident rather that using the air tax to intimidate them. them (rephrased for better flow). Government should not equate introducing the air tax with the antedote antidote (corrected spelling) of pollution. Only by raising publc public awareness about environmental protection can we achieve our goal.

Besides, being circumspect about air tax, which is a onerous financial task, can help us avoid significant opportunity cost. If we decide to introduce the air tax, we need to spend a huge amount of manpower, material and financial resources to formulate relevant policies. As Claire says, why not putting these resources into find where (rephrased for better flow) the pollution generate the most and how can we sap (changed word for clarity) the grievous impact on environment? That is the whole point.

In conclusion, despite the seemingly plausible solution Andrew proposes, I believes believe Claire’s idea is more sagacious.sagacious (changed word for consistency).

8 思维导图


- Introduction
  - Air pollution debate
  - Environmental taxes on air travel
  - Agree with Claire's argument

- Point 1: Raising public awareness
  - Prioritize environmental protection education
  - Air taxes not a panacea for pollution
  - Collective efforts from the public

- Point 2: Caution and opportunity costs
  - Financial burden of air taxes
  - Resource allocation for policy development
  - Identifying major pollution sources and mitigation strategies

- Conclusion
  - Claire's perspective more prudent than Andrew's proposal 
  - Focus on raising environmental awareness and addressing pollution at its source 

9 关键词

WordPhonetic SymbolPart of SpeechEnglish DefinitionSimplified Chinese TranslationSample Sentence
surge/sɜːrdʒ/nouna sudden increase or rise激增The ongoing global surge in air pollution has sparked a heated debate.
deterrent/dɪˈtɛrənt/nounsomething that discourages or prevents a certain action威慑物The government should not view the introduction of such taxes as a deterrent for pollution.
panacea/ˌpænəˈsiːə/nouna solution or remedy for all difficulties or diseases灵丹妙药The government should not view the introduction of such taxes as a panacea for pollution.
opportunity cost/əˈpɔrtʃənɪti kɒst/nounthe loss of potential gain from other alternatives机会成本Implementing these taxes would require considerable manpower, material, and financial opportunity costs.
prudent/ˈpruːdnt/adjectiveacting with or showing care and thought for the future谨慎的Claire's perspective offers a more prudent course of action compared to Andrew's proposal.
mitigation/ˌmɪtɪˈɡeɪʃən/nounthe action of reducing the severity, seriousness, or pain缓和,减轻Identifying major sources of pollution and developing strategies to mitigate their impact is important.
detrimental/ˌdetrɪˈmentl/adjectivetending to cause harm有害的Developing strategies to mitigate the detrimental impact on the environment is crucial.
allocate/ˈæləkeɪt/verb/to distribute (resources or duties) for a particular purpose分配/As Claire suggests, why not allocate these resources towards identifying major sources of pollution?
awareness/əˈwernəs//noun/knowledge or perception of a situation or fact/意识/Focusing on raising environmental awareness will likely yield better results in our fight against air pollution.

學術討論如何評分

TOEFL學術討論題型依據官方 ETS 評分標準進行評分,AI 評分系統會從多個面向分析每篇回答。

切題度與貢獻度

回答是否切合題目,並對討論做出有意義的貢獻?

語言運用

文法準確度、詞彙廣度,以及句子結構的品質。

論述發展與支持

論點是否透過具體例子和清楚的推理獲得充分發展?

回答中的常見模式

根據對本題考生投稿的分析,以下是考生回答中常見的模式。

許多考生提出了明確的觀點,卻缺乏具體的佐證例子。

高分回答通常會直接引用閱讀文章內容,並回應其他發言者的觀點。

得分較高的回答會運用多樣的句型結構與學術詞彙。

時間管理是關鍵因素——顯得倉促完成的回答,在論述發展方面通常得分較低。

學習訣竅

1

動筆前仔細閱讀題目,確認問題的每個部分都已理解。

2

在回答中引用閱讀文章內容,並回應其他考生的觀點。

3

用具體例子支持你的主要論點——避免空泛籠統的說法。

4

字數以 120-150 字為目標。篇幅較長不代表較好,清晰與聚焦更為重要。

5

練習限時作答(10 分鐘),培養在考試情境下的流暢度。

常見問題

什麼是TOEFL學術討論任務?
TOEFL學術討論任務要求你參與線上課堂討論。你需要閱讀教授的問題和其他學生的回覆,然後在約10分鐘內寫出自己的貼文,表達並支持你的觀點。
學術討論任務如何評分?
此任務依0-5分評分,評分依據包括與討論的相關性、語言運用品質(文法、詞彙、句子結構),以及你如何用具體例子和推理來發展並支持自己的觀點。
此頁面上的用戶範例是什麼?
這些是TOEFL考生在LingoLeap上練習這道題目時提交的真實回答。每個範例都經過我們的AI評分引擎評估,提供分數以及關於優勢與待加強領域的詳細回饋。
AI評估的準確度如何?
LingoLeap的AI評估引擎以ETS官方評分標準訓練而成,並與人工評分員的評分校準。雖然沒有自動化系統是完美的,但它能為練習提供可靠的回饋,並協助找出具體的加強方向。
我要如何練習這道學術討論題目?
你可以註冊免費的LingoLeap帳號來練習。針對這道確切的題目寫出你自己的回答,送出後即可立即獲得附有詳細回饋的AI評估。
我的學術討論回答應該多長?
目標字數為120-150字。此任務給你10分鐘的時間撰寫回答。請專注於表達清晰、用具體例子支持你的觀點,並引用討論脈絡,而非一味追求更長的篇幅。

今天就為您的目標分數加油!

與 LingoLeap,英語考試專家一起

更快達到您的理想分數

立即免費試用