TOEFL TPO -1 Writing Task 1 Sample: Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they present their relationship to the reading passage.

1.子项得分 任务完成度: 4 组织: 4 连贯与衔接: 4 语言使用: 3

2.预估分数

25. 3.任务完成度

整体来说，文章较好地完成了任务要求，概述了听力中提到的观点，并与阅读材料进行了对比。但在语言使用方面有待提高。建议在描述听力观点时，尽量使用更准确、更具表现力的词汇和表达方式。

示例1: 原文：However, the lecture dispute this, stating that it can be risky. 修改：However, the lecture challenges this by arguing that it poses significant risks.

示例2: 原文：The waste are possible to leak when the canisters are moving, challenging the argument that this storing way is safe. 修改：The potential leakage of waste during the movement of canisters undermines the claim that this storage method is safe.

4.文章结构与组织 文章的结构和组织方面基本合理，包括引言、正文和结论。每段都集中讨论一个特定的观点，并提供支持细节。然而，在段落之间的过渡可以更加自然流畅。建议在段落开头或结尾处添加一些过渡性词汇或短语，以帮助读者更好地理解文章的逻辑关系。

示例1: 原文：First, the passage suggest that canisters can be stored in permanent structures above ground, with signs beside it warning people the purpose of the structure. 修改：Firstly, the passage suggests that canisters can be stored in permanent structures above ground, accompanied by warning signs to inform people about the purpose of the structure.

示例2: 原文：Second, the passage mentions that we can use boreholes, which have been experienced by engineers, to store the canisters. 修改：Secondly, the passage mentions that boreholes, which engineers have experience with, could be utilized for storing the canisters.

5. Grammar

(Whitespace repetition (bad formatting))The lecture casts doubt on three strategies made in the passage regarding how to safely strorestore(misspelling) canisters containing radioactive waste for thousands of years. First, the passage suggestsuggests(punctuation + singular noun + plural verb) that canisters can be stored in permanent structures above ground, with signs beside it warning people the purpose of the structure. However, the lecture dispute this, stating that it can be risky. People in thousandsthousand(...with citations (citation) numbers that are sequential) yearsof years(This rule identifies whether the preposition 'of' is missing in a sentence.) ago are likely not using nuclear power anymore, as a result, they will forget how dangerous neuclearnuclear(misspelling) power can be, stopping to maintain the structure at last. Moreover, the signs are likely to be unrecognizable to people with the evolution of language, raising questions about the validity of the points made in the passage. (Whitespace repetition (bad formatting))Second, the passage mentions that we can use boreholes, which have been experienced by engineers, to store the canisters. However, the lecture raise doubts about it. The borehole for storing canisters should be twice as wide as the boreholes we are using today, which means that the holes can be really unstable. GeoglogicalGeological(misspelling) forces can easily crash the hole and the canisters, letting the waste to leakleak(Don't let any negativity to affect (affect) you). This argument diminishes the credibility of the strategy in the passage. (Whitespace repetition (bad formatting))Third, the passage highlights the strategy of storing canisters below the ice sheet of Antarctica. The lecturer counters this argument by pointing out that climate change can make the ice less stable, suggesting that the canisters are more likely to move inside the ice rather than stay in one particular spot. The waste are possible to leak when the canisters are moving, challenging the argument that this storing way is safe. (Whitespace repetition (bad formatting))In conclusion ,, (Use of whitespace before comma and before/after parentheses)the lecture effectively challenges the arguments made in the passage, raising significanta significant(This rule identifies whether the article 'a' is missing in a sentence.) question about three strategies of storing radioactive waste.

Section Title: 6.文章修订

The lecture casts doubt on the three strategies presented in the passage regarding the safe storage of canisters containing radioactive waste for thousands of years.

First, the passage suggests that canisters can be stored in permanent structures above ground, accompanied by warning signs indicating the purpose of the structure. However, the lecture disputes this, stating that it can be risky. People in future generations may no longer use nuclear power and consequently forget its dangers, leading to neglect in maintaining these structures. Moreover, with language evolution over time, warning signs may become unrecognizable to future populations, raising questions about the validity of this strategy presented in the passage.

Second, the passage mentions borehole disposal as a viable option for storing canisters due to engineers' experience with drilling them. However, the lecture raises doubts about this method's stability. The boreholes required for storing canisters would need to be twice as wide as those currently used, making them potentially unstable. Geological forces could easily cause these wider holes to collapse and crush both the hole and canisters within, resulting in waste leakage. This argument diminishes the credibility of this strategy from the passage.

Third, the passage highlights ice sheet storage in Antarctica as another potential solution for containing radioactive waste. The lecturer counters this argument by pointing out that climate change could make ice sheets less stable than previously thought. Consequently, canisters are more likely to move within shifting ice rather than remaining stationary at a specific location. As these containers move within unstable ice sheets, waste leakage becomes a possibility—challenging this method's safety claims.

Ultimately, the lecture effectively challenges each argument made in the passage and raises significant questions about all three strategies for safely storing radioactive waste over extended periods of time. (295 words)

The lecture casts doubt on the three strategies made presented in the passage regarding how to safely strore the safe storage of canisters containing radioactive waste for thousands of years. years (Changed "made" to "presented" for clarity).

First, the passage suggest suggests that canisters can be stored in permanent structures above ground, with accompanied by warning signs beside it warning people indicating the purpose of the structure. structure (Rephrased for better flow). However, the lecture dispute disputes this, stating that it can be risky. People in thousands years ago are likely not using future generations may no longer use nuclear power anymore, as a result, they will and consequently forget how dangerous neuclear power can be, stopping to maintain the structure at last. its dangers (Rephrased to clarify time frame), leading to neglect in maintaining these structures. Moreover, the with language evolution over time, warning signs are likely to be may become unrecognizable to people with the evolution of language, future populations (Clarified subject), raising questions about the validity of the points made this strategy presented in the passage.

Second, the passage mentions that we can use boreholes, which have been experienced by engineers, to store the canisters. borehole disposal as a viable option for storing canisters due to engineers' experience with drilling them (Clarified subject and rephrased for better flow). However, the lecture raise raises doubts about it. this method's stability. The borehole boreholes required for storing canisters should would need to be twice as wide as the boreholes we are using today, which means that the those currently used, making them potentially unstable (Clarified reasoning). Geological forces could easily cause these wider holes can be really unstable. Geoglogical forces can easily crash to collapse and crush both the hole and the canisters, letting the waste to leak. canisters within, resulting in waste leakage (Clarified cause and effect). This argument diminishes the credibility of the this strategy in from the passage.

Third, the passage highlights the strategy of storing canisters below the ice sheet of Antarctica. storage in Antarctica as another potential solution for containing radioactive waste (Clarified subject). The lecturer counters this argument by pointing out that climate change can could make the ice sheets less stable, suggesting that the stable than previously thought (Added context). Consequently, canisters are more likely to move inside the within shifting ice rather than stay in one particular spot. The waste are possible to leak when the canisters are moving, challenging the argument that this storing way is safe. remaining stationary at a specific location (Clarified reasoning). As these containers move within unstable ice sheets, waste leakage becomes a possibility—challenging this method's safety claims (Clarified cause and effect).

In conclusion ,the Ultimately, the lecture effectively challenges the arguments each argument made in the passage, raising passage and raises significant question questions about all three strategies of for safely storing radioactive waste.waste over extended periods of time (Rephrased for better flow).

8. Mind Map

Mind Map:

- Introduction
  - Essay structure
  - Lecture's stance

- Strategy 1: Permanent Structures Above Ground
  - Passage's argument
  - Lecture's counterargument
    - Future generations forgetting dangers
    - Language evolution and warning signs

- Strategy 2: Borehole Disposal
  - Passage's argument
  - Lecture's counterargument
    - Stability concerns with wider holes
    - Geological forces causing collapse and leakage

- Strategy 3: Ice Sheet Storage in Antarctica
  - Passage's argument 
  - Lecture's counterargument 
    - Climate change affecting ice sheet stability 
    - Canisters moving within shifting ice and leakage risks 

- Conclusion 
  - Lecture challenges all three strategies 

9. Keywords