TOEFL Writing Task 1 Sample: Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific theories mentioned in the reading passage.

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 does a good job of summarizing the points made in the lecture and explaining how they cast doubt on the specific theories mentioned in the reading passage. However, there is room for improvement in terms of language use and clarity. To improve task fulfillment, consider using more precise language to convey your ideas and make sure to address all aspects of the question.

Example 1: Instead of "Richard did nothing bad to his nephews," you could write "Richard was not responsible for his nephews' disappearance."

Example 2: Instead of "his nephews were not belong to these dead children at the Tower of London," you could write "the skeletons found at the Tower of London cannot be conclusively identified as Richard's nephews."

4.Essay structure and organization The essay has a clear structure with an introduction, body, and conclusion. Each paragraph focuses on a specific point, but there is room for improvement in terms of transitions between ideas and paragraphs. To enhance coherence and cohesion, consider using more explicit transition words or phrases.

Example 1: Add a transition phrase at the beginning of the second paragraph: "Firstly, even though the reading passage suggests that Richard has extreme motivation to kill his nephews..."

Example 2: Add a transition phrase at the beginning of the third paragraph: "Moreover, the lecturer casts doubt on..."

5. Grammar

In the reading material, the author cites three reasons to support the viewpoint that Richard III is an evil man who killed his nephews, which is supported by William Shakespeare's play. Nevertheless, the lecturer in the listening part argues that more evidences and historians believes that Richard did nothing bad to his nephews, and opposes the points in the reading material.

First and foremost, even though the reading passage suggests that Richard has extreme motivation to kill his nephews. It is because he was eager to be a king, that he made his nephews, the previous king's sons, disappeared. The lecturer argues that he is competitive to be the king, by his other strateriesstrategies(misspelling). One of his strategy was to identify that Edward IV was not legally married withmarried to(Collocation: Marry with/to) his nephews' mother, which made them lose right to be king in the future. Obviously, the lecturer's argument disproves its counterpart in the reading.

In addition, the lecturer casts doubt on the author's another reason that both writers like Shakespeare and historians like Sir Thomas More proved that Richard III was not innocent in his nephews' death. He demonstrates that Richard III might not accuse murder to his nephews, due to the fact that the historians who pointed out Richard III's mudermurder(misspelling) were corresponding to Richard III's enemy families closely. In other words, it is not granted that Richard III was the one who killed his nephews.

Finally, the author's third reason that physical evidence was valid to identify Richard's murder is also counteratedcounteracted(misspelling) by the lecturer, who points out that his nephews were not belongbelonged(Agreement: 'been' or 'was' + past tense) to these dead children at the Tower of London. There are too many children lived before 1600s, and we even cannot figure out these dead children are boys or girls.

6. Revised Essay

In the reading material, the author cites three reasons to support the viewpoint that Richard III is an evil man who killed his nephews, as portrayed in William Shakespeare's play. Nevertheless, the lecturer in the listening part argues that more evidence and historians believe that Richard did nothing wrong to his nephews, and opposes the points in the reading material.

First and foremost, even though the reading passage suggests that Richard had a strong motive to kill his nephews due to his desire to be king, the lecturer argues that he employed other strategies instead. One such strategy was to claim that Edward IV was not legally married to his nephews' mother, which made them lose their right to be king in the future. Clearly, the lecturer's argument contradicts its counterpart in the reading.

In addition, the lecturer casts doubt on another reason presented by the author - that both writers like Shakespeare and historians like Sir Thomas More proved Richard III was guilty of his nephews' deaths. The lecturer demonstrates that these accusations might not be accurate since historians who pointed out Richard III's guilt were closely associated with his enemy families. In other words, it cannot be taken for granted that Richard III was responsible for killing his nephews.

Finally, the author's third reason - that physical evidence supports Richard's guilt - is also countered by the lecturer. He points out that it is uncertain whether these skeletons found at the Tower of London belonged to Richard's nephews or not. Numerous children lived there before 1600s, and it is impossible to determine if these remains are male or female. (274 words)

In the reading material, the author cites three reasons to support the viewpoint that Richard III is an evil man who killed his nephews, which is supported by as portrayed in William Shakespeare's play. play (changed "which is supported by" to "as portrayed in" for better flow). Nevertheless, the lecturer in the listening part argues that more evidences evidence (corrected "evidences" to "evidence") and historians believes believe that Richard did nothing bad wrong (changed "bad" to "wrong" for a more natural tone) to his nephews, and opposes the points in the reading material.

First and foremost, even though the reading passage suggests that Richard has extreme motivation had a strong motive (changed "extreme motivation" to "strong motive") to kill his nephews. It is because he was eager to be a king, that he made his nephews, the previous king's sons, disappeared. The nephews due to his desire to be king (added "due to his desire to be king" for clarity), the lecturer argues that he is competitive to be the king, by his employed other strateries. strategies instead (changed "by his other strateries" to "employed other strategies instead"). One of his such strategy was to identify claim that Edward IV was not legally married with to his nephews' mother, which made them lose their right (corrected "lose right" to "lose their right") to be king in the future. Obviously, Clearly, the lecturer's argument disproves contradicts its counterpart in the reading.

In addition, the lecturer casts doubt on the author's another reason presented by the author - that both writers like Shakespeare and historians like Sir Thomas More proved that Richard III was not guilty of his nephews' deaths (changed "not innocent in his nephews' death. He death" to "guilty of his nephews' deaths"). The lecturer demonstrates that Richard III these accusations might not accuse murder to his nephews, due to the fact that the be accurate since historians who pointed out Richard III's muder guilt were corresponding to Richard III's closely associated with his enemy families closely. families. In other words, it cannot be taken for granted (changed "it is not granted granted" to "it cannot be taken for granted") that Richard III was the one who killed responsible for killing his nephews.

Finally, the author's third reason - that physical evidence was valid to identify supports Richard's murder guilt - is also counterated countered by the lecturer, who lecturer. He points out that his it is uncertain whether these skeletons found at the Tower of London belonged to Richard's nephews or not (changed "his nephews were not belong to these dead children children" to "it is uncertain whether these skeletons found at the Tower of London. There are too many London belonged to Richard's nephews or not"). Numerous children lived there before 1600s, and we it is impossible to determine if these remains are male or female (changed "we even cannot figure out these dead children are boys or girls.girls" to "it is impossible to determine if these remains are male or female").

8. Mind Map

- Introduction
    - Reading material: Richard III is evil and killed his nephews
    - Lecturer: Evidence and historians suggest otherwise

- Point 1: Motive to kill nephews
    - Reading: Richard wanted to be king
    - Lecturer: Used other strategies, such as questioning nephews' legitimacy

- Point 2: Writers and historians prove guilt
    - Reading: Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More accused Richard III
    - Lecturer: Accusations might be biased due to connections with enemy families

- Point 3: Physical evidence supports guilt
    - Reading: Skeletons found at Tower of London belonged to nephews
    - Lecturer: Uncertain if remains are male or female, many children lived there before 1600s

9. Key Words

1.子项得分 任务完成度：4 组织：4 连贯性和衔接：4 语言使用：3

2.预估分数

25. 3.任务完成度

总体来说，你的文章在任务完成度方面表现得相当不错。你成功地概括了听力中提到的观点，并对阅读材料中的论点进行了质疑。然而，有一些地方可以改进。首先，在引述听力内容时，尽量避免使用过于相似的表达方式。尝试使用不同的词汇和句式来表达相同的意思，以展示你对英语词汇和语法结构的掌握。其次，在总结听力观点时，可以更具体地描述教授是如何反驳阅读材料中的论点的。

例1： 原文：On the contrary, the lecturer refutes this by saying that there was no evidence to infer the exist of a long distance. 修改后：In contrast, the professor argues that the lack of evidence for a long distance makes it impossible to conclude that Ophir was located in South Asia.

例2： 原文：Hence the similarity of the texts was just a coincident rendering the argument in the reading invalid. 修改后：Therefore, it is likely that the similarities between these words are coincidental, which weakens the reading's argument.

4.文章结构与组织 你的文章结构基本上是清晰的，包括引言、主体和结论。每个段落都集中在一个特定的观点和支持细节上。然而，有一些建议可以帮助你改进文章的组织。首先，确保你的引言部分简洁明了地概括了阅读和听力材料的主要观点。其次，在主体段落中，使用更明确的过渡词和短语来连接不同的观点，以便让读者更容易理解你的论述。

例1： 原文：According to the ancient records, there were trades between the eastern Mediterranean region and Ophir. 修改后：The reading passage suggests that Ophir was located in South Asia based on ancient trade records, while the lecture casts doubt on this theory.

例2： 原文：Thus, the author's assertion regarding the origin of the good is untenable. 修改后：As a result, the author's claim about the origin of goods being a strong indicator of Ophir's location is weakened.

5. 语法批改

According to the ancient records, there were trades between the eastern Mediterranean region and Ophir. The reading passage uses three specific considerations to indicate that Ophir was a place in South Asia. However, the listening claims it is not as convincing as the author suggests.

Firstly, the writer posits that a number of goods that Ophir tradedtraded,(This rule identifies whether commas are missing in a sentence.) such as wood and ivory were originated from South Asia. Nevertheless, the professor counters this argument by saying that ancient products would first be brought to a trading centrecenter(misspelling) and, and(comma between independent clauses) then they were bought by traders. As a result, the eastern Mediterranean probably purchased the Ophir's good from a trading centrecenter(misspelling) in another place. Thus, the author's assertion regarding the origin of the good is untenable.

Furthermore, the author points out evidences showed a year and a half voyage of the trade, which match the distance between the Mediterranean and the South Asia. On the contrary, the lecturer refutes this by saying that there was no evidence to infer the existto exist(a infinitive) of a long distance. Since the ancient navigation has low technics, their ship might go slowly and stop frequently. In this way, it could take a year or more than a year for the eastern Mediterranean to get the Arabian Peninsula.

Lastly, the reading contends that similar words occurs atin(This rule identifies wrong preposition usage.) both ancient Mediterranean texts and some goods from Ophir. Conversely, the speaker rebuts that this similarity between languages is limited into(This rule identifies wrong preposition usage.) just a few words. For instance, the word '' dog '' is similar in English and Australian while there is no early context seems similar to each other. HenceHence,(Commas after conjunctive/linking adverbs in front of a new sentence.) the similarity of the texts was just a coincidentcoincident,(This rule identifies whether commas are missing in a sentence.) rendering the argument in the reading invalid.

Section Title: 6.文章修订

The ancient records indicate trade between the eastern Mediterranean region and Ophir. The reading passage presents three specific reasons to suggest that Ophir was located in South Asia. However, the listening casts doubt on these claims, arguing that they are not as convincing as the author suggests.

Firstly, the writer posits that several goods traded by Ophir, such as rare woods and ivory, originated from South Asia. Nevertheless, the professor counters this argument by stating that in the ancient world, goods were often brought to trading centers before being purchased by traders. Consequently, the eastern Mediterranean might have acquired Ophir's goods from a trading center in another location. Thus, the author's assertion regarding the origin of these goods is untenable.

Furthermore, the author cites evidence of a year-and-a-half-long voyage for trade between Ophir and the Mediterranean, which corresponds with the distance between South Asia and the Mediterranean. On the contrary, the lecturer refutes this claim by asserting that there is no concrete evidence to support such a long-distance journey. Given that ancient navigation techniques were primitive, ships traveled slowly and made frequent stops; therefore, it could have taken a year or more for goods to reach even less distant places like the Arabian Peninsula.

Lastly, the reading contends that similarities exist between words used in ancient Mediterranean texts and those describing some goods from Ophir. Conversely, the speaker argues that this similarity between languages is limited to just a few words and may not necessarily indicate contact or relationship between them. For instance, both English speakers and speakers of one native Australian language use identical words for "dog," despite no early contact existing between England and Australia to explain their similarity. Hence, it is likely that these linguistic similarities mentioned in the reading are merely coincidental rather than indicative of any connection between Ophir and South Asia. (310 words)

Revised essay: Section Title: 7.文章批改

According to the ancient records, there were trades between the eastern Mediterranean region and Ophir. The reading passage uses presents three specific considerations to indicate suggest that Ophir was a place in South Asia. However, the listening claims it is casts doubt on these claims, arguing that they are not as convincing as the author suggests.

Firstly, the writer posits that a number of goods that Ophir traded traded, such as wood and ivory were ivory, originated from South Asia. Asia (changed "were originated" to "originated" for better grammar). Nevertheless, the professor counters this argument by saying that ancient products would first be brought to a trading centre center and then they were bought by traders. traders (replaced "centre" with "center" for consistency in American English spelling). As a result, the eastern Mediterranean probably purchased the Ophir's good goods from a trading centre center in another place. Thus, the author's assertion regarding the origin of the good these goods is untenable.

Furthermore, the author points out evidences showed a year and a half evidence showing a year-and-a-half-long voyage of the trade, for trade (changed "evidences showed" to "evidence showing" for better grammar), which match matches the distance between the Mediterranean and the South Asia. On the contrary, the lecturer refutes this by saying that there was no evidence to infer the exist existence of such a long distance. distance (changed "exist" to "existence" for better word choice). Since the ancient navigation has had low technics, techniques (changed "has low technics" to "had low techniques"), their ship ships might go have traveled slowly and stopped frequently (changed "go slowly and stop frequently. frequently" to "traveled slowly and stopped frequently"). In this way, it could take a year or more than a year for the eastern Mediterranean to get goods from Ophir to reach even less distant places like the Arabian Peninsula.

Lastly, the reading contends that similar words occurs at occur in both ancient Mediterranean texts and some goods from Ophir. Ophir (changed "occurs at" to "occur in"). Conversely, the speaker rebuts that this similarity between languages is limited in to just a few words. For instance, the word '' dog '' "dog" is similar in English and one native Australian language (changed "Australian" to "one native Australian language" for clarity), while there is no early context that seems similar to between them (changed "to each other. Hence other" to "between them"). Hence, the similarity of the texts was just a coincident coincidence (changed "coincident" to "coincidence"), rendering the argument in the reading invalid.

8. Mind Map

- Introduction
  - Eastern Mediterranean and Ophir trade
  - Reading: Ophir in South Asia
  - Listening: Doubts about South Asia location

- Point 1: Goods Origin
  - Reading: Rare woods and ivory from South Asia
  - Listening: Goods could have come from other trading centers

- Point 2: Voyage Duration
  - Reading: Year-and-a-half-long journey supports South Asia location
  - Listening: No concrete evidence, slow navigation, and frequent stops

- Point 3: Linguistic Similarities
  - Reading: Similar words in ancient texts and Ophir goods descriptions
  - Listening: Limited similarities, possibly coincidental, not indicative of connection

- Conclusion
  - Counterarguments to the reading's claims

9. Keywords

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 does a good job of summarizing the points made in the lecture and explaining how they cast doubt on the specific theories mentioned in the reading passage. However, there is room for improvement in providing more detailed explanations and addressing each point more thoroughly. Additionally, some minor language errors need to be corrected.

Suggestions for improvement:

• Provide more specific examples from the lecture to support your points.

• Ensure that each point is addressed thoroughly and clearly.

• Proofread your essay for grammar and vocabulary errors.

Examples:

1. Instead of just mentioning that Richard used another method to move his nephews out of his way, explain this method in detail and provide evidence from the lecture.

2. When discussing the writers who supported the claim that Richard III ordered the assassinations, mention any specific evidence or arguments they provided.

4.Essay structure and organization The essay has a clear structure with an introduction, body, and conclusion. The organization is logical, with each paragraph focusing on a specific point and supporting details. However, there is room for improvement in creating smoother transitions between ideas and paragraphs.

Suggestions for improvement:

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

• Ensure that each paragraph has a clear topic sentence that introduces its main idea.

Examples:

1. In your second paragraph, use a transition phrase like "Contrary to this belief" before explaining how the lecturer refutes the first point from the reading passage.

2. Begin your third paragraph with a topic sentence like "While many writers throughout history have supported Richard III's guilt, their credibility can be questioned due to their associations."

5. Grammar

A recent topic of debate has been whether Richard III, a king who ruled England, actually ordered the death of his nephews, as described by Shakespeare. The author of the reading passage claims that the playwright was telling the truth, however, the lecturer disagrees. The reading passage first talked about Richard III's motives to be king, and that only by murdering his nephew, who were the official heirs, he would achieve this goal. However, the lecturer refutes this point by saying that, actually, Richard use another method to move his nephews out of his way. He persuaded into believing that his nephew's parents weren't legally married, thus making his nephews illegitimate and unfit for the throne. The reading passage then goes on to state that a lot of famous writers throughout history supported the claim that Richard III had ordered the assassinations, for instance Shakespeare and Sir Tomas More. On the other hand, the lecturer disagrees, stating out the fact that these writers had been associated with the Tutors, a noble family that were the enemies of Richard III's dynasty and took over later in history. The lecturer then expresses the idea that the Tutors wanted to portray Richard as aan(Use of 'a' vs. 'an') evil ruler to support their own reign. Moreover, the author of the reading passage claims that skeletons of children found at the Tower of London provides physical evidence for the murder, since the tower was where Richard's nephews were kept. However, the lecturer disagrees and states the fact that we cannot be certain of the age ofor(Detects potentially wrong usage of "of") even gender of the skeletons, and that families with children also lived in the tower in history, thus proving her claim that we have reason to doubt that Richard ordered the murder. All in all, the author of the reading passage claims that Richard III ordered the murder of his nephewsnephews,(This rule identifies whether commas are missing in a sentence.) while the lecturer believed otherwise and proved her assertion.

6. Revised Essay

The historical accuracy of Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard III as a king who ordered the death of his nephews has been a subject of controversy. The reading passage supports this view, while the lecturer casts doubt on it. The passage presents Richard III's motive to become king as evidence, arguing that he could only achieve this by eliminating his nephews, who were the rightful heirs. However, the lecturer counters this by explaining that Richard used a different approach, convincing others that his nephews' parents were not legally married and thus rendering them illegitimate and unfit for the throne.

Furthermore, the reading passage cites famous writers such as Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More as supporters of the claim that Richard III plotted his nephews' disappearance. In contrast, the lecturer points out that these writers were associated with the Tudors, a noble family that was an enemy of Richard III's dynasty and later took over power. According to the lecturer, the Tudors had an interest in depicting Richard as an evil ruler to justify their own rule.

Lastly, the author of the reading passage asserts that physical evidence supports their view since skeletons of children were found at the Tower of London where Richard's nephews were housed. However, the lecturer disputes this claim by stating that it is impossible to determine the age or gender of these skeletons accurately. Additionally, she mentions that families with children also resided in the tower throughout history. Consequently, there is no concrete proof to confirm that Richard ordered his nephews' murder.

In light of these counterarguments presented by the lecturer, it becomes evident that there are significant reasons to question whether Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard III ordering his nephews' deaths is historically accurate or not. (292 words)

A recent topic of debate has been whether Richard III, The historical accuracy of Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard III as a king who ruled England, actually ordered the death of his nephews, as described by Shakespeare. The author of the reading passage claims that the playwright was telling the truth, however, the lecturer disagrees. nephews has been a subject of controversy (revised for clarity and conciseness). The reading passage first talked about supports this view, while the lecturer casts doubt on it. The passage presents Richard III's motives to be king, and that motive to become king as evidence, arguing that he could only by murdering his nephew, who were the official heirs, he would achieve this goal. by eliminating his nephews, who were the rightful heirs. However, the lecturer refutes counters this point by saying that, actually, Richard use another method to move his nephews out of his way. He persuaded into believing that his nephew's explaining that Richard used a different approach (revised for better word choice), convincing others that his nephews' parents weren't were not legally married, married and thus making his nephews rendering them illegitimate and unfit for the throne. The

Furthermore, the reading passage then goes on to state that a lot of cites famous writers throughout history supported such as Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More as supporters of the claim that Richard III had ordered the assassinations, for instance Shakespeare and Sir Tomas More. On the other hand, plotted his nephews' disappearance (revised for better word choice). In contrast, the lecturer disagrees, stating points out the fact that these writers had been were associated with the Tutors, Tudors (corrected spelling), a noble family that were the enemies was an enemy of Richard III's dynasty and later took over later power. According to the lecturer, the Tudors had an interest in history. The lecturer then expresses the idea that the Tutors wanted to portray Richard as a depicting Richard as an evil ruler to support justify their own reign. Moreover, rule.

Lastly, the author of the reading passage claims that asserts that physical evidence supports their view since skeletons of children were found at the Tower of London provides physical evidence for the murder, since the tower was where Richard's nephews were kept. housed (revised for better word choice). However, the lecturer disagrees and states the fact that we cannot be certain of disputes this claim by stating that it is impossible to determine the age of even or gender of the skeletons, and these skeletons accurately (revised for clarity). Additionally, she mentions that families with children also lived resided in the tower in history, thus proving her claim that we have reason to doubt throughout history. Consequently, there is no concrete proof to confirm that Richard ordered the murder. All in all, the author of the reading passage claims that his nephews' murder (revised for better word choice).

In light of these counterarguments presented by the lecturer, it becomes evident that there are significant reasons to question whether Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard III ordered the murder of his nephews while the lecturer believed otherwise and proved her assertion.ordering his nephews' deaths is historically accurate or not (revised for clarity and conciseness).

8. Mind Map

- Introduction
    - Controversy over Richard III's portrayal
    - Reading passage vs. lecturer's view

- Point 1: Motive to become king
    - Reading passage: Eliminating nephews as rightful heirs
    - Lecturer: Discrediting nephews' legitimacy through parents' marriage status

- Point 2: Support from famous writers
    - Reading passage: Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More support the claim
    - Lecturer: Writers' association with the Tudors, who had an interest in depicting Richard as evil

- Point 3: Physical evidence of children's skeletons at the Tower of London
    - Reading passage: Supports the claim that Richard ordered nephews' murder
    - Lecturer: Inability to accurately determine age or gender, other families with children residing in the tower

- Conclusion
    - Counterarguments by lecturer cast doubt on historical accuracy of Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard III 

9. Key Words