TOEFLIELTS
☰
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 100 words.

真实用户提交的答案,配合AI智能评估与反馈

共有 1 份用户提交的样本

开始免费练习

题目概览

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.

用户样本与评估结果

练习同类托福写作题 →

将打开 LingoLeap App 的写作题目列表,而不是本题。练习需要免费账号。AI 评分会消耗积分,但 Practice Test 1(PQ26-1)中的题目每天可免费评分 3 次。

1

用户样本 #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...

分数
26

用户样本

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.

评估结果

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.
练习同类托福写作题 →

将打开 LingoLeap App 的写作题目列表,而不是本题。练习需要免费账号。AI 评分会消耗积分,但 Practice Test 1(PQ26-1)中的题目每天可免费评分 3 次。

学术讨论评分标准

托福学术讨论任务基于ETS官方评分标准进行评估。AI评估系统从多个维度分析每个回答。

相关性与贡献

回答是否针对问题并为讨论做出有意义的贡献?

语言运用

语法准确性、词汇丰富度和句式结构质量。

论述与支撑

观点是否充分展开,是否有具体例子和清晰推理支撑?

回答中的常见模式

基于对该题目用户提交内容的分析,以下是在学生回答中观察到的常见模式。

很多学生能清楚表达观点,但缺乏具体的论据支撑。

高分回答会直接引用阅读段落和其他发言者的观点。

更高分的回答使用多样化的句式结构和学术词汇。

时间管理是关键因素——匆忙完成的回答在论述发展方面得分较低。

学习建议

1

在开始写作前仔细阅读题目,理清问题的所有组成部分。

2

在回答中引用阅读段落和其他同学的观点。

3

使用具体例子来支持你的主要论点——避免笼统的表述。

4

目标字数120-150词。更长的回答不一定更好;清晰度和针对性更重要。

5

进行限时练习(10分钟),在考试条件下提升写作流畅度。

常见问题

什么是托福学术讨论任务?
托福学术讨论任务要求你参与在线课堂讨论。你需要阅读教授的问题和其他学生的回复,然后在约10分钟内写出自己的帖子,表达并支持你的观点。
学术讨论任务如何评分?
该任务按0-5分评分,评估维度包括与讨论的相关性、语言运用质量(语法、词汇、句式结构)以及你如何用具体例子和推理来发展和支持自己的观点。
本页面上的用户样本是什么?
这些是托福考生在LingoLeap上练习此题时提交的真实回答。每个样本都经过我们的AI评分引擎评估,提供分数和关于优势与待提升领域的详细反馈。
AI评估的准确度如何?
LingoLeap的AI评估引擎基于ETS官方评分标准训练,并与人工评分校准。虽然没有自动化系统是完美的,但它为练习目的提供了可靠的反馈,帮助识别具体的提升方向。
如何练习这道学术讨论题目?
你可以注册免费的LingoLeap账号进行练习。针对这道题目写出你自己的回答,提交后即可获得带有详细反馈的AI即时评估。
学术讨论回答应该多长?
目标字数120-150词。该任务给你10分钟写作时间。重点关注表达的清晰度、用具体例子支持观点以及引用讨论背景,而不是追求更长的篇幅。

今天就为您的目标分数加油!

与 LingoLeap,英语考试专家一起

更快达到您的理想分数

立即免费试用