TOEFL Writing¶

约 4056 个字预计阅读时间 14 分钟

Experience & Techniques¶

Academic Discussion¶

给分要点：

Topic：120-180 个词，需要包含论证/Reasoning、例子/Example 甚至让步/Concession 内容。
Coherence：主题清晰，前后逻辑流畅，句间衔接自然。
Language：词汇自然、准确、多样。
Grammar：需要使用简单句和混合句的结合，有从句和分词做状语更好。

Academic Discussion¶

Real 25¶

Problem: The influence of social media influencers on followers

Professor's Question: This week, we discussed the importance of role models and opinion makers in society. One idea we discussed was the widespread impact of "influencers." Influencers are people who are very active posting on social media and who have many followers. Influencers' posts and opinions can influence their followers' choices on everything from fashion to politics. In your opinion, do social media influencers generally have a positive or negative effect on their followers? Why do you think so?
Student A's Answer: I think the influencers' effect is generally positive. People can learn about the latest trends and topics in a very quick and efficient way by following influencers. In the past, people had to spend time looking through magazines or visiting boutiques to even know what was trending.
Student B's Answer: I think influencers generally have a negative effect because they have far too much influence. I can think of one influencer who only has to mention a particular kind of sports shoe, and the next day they'll be sold out. The followers aren't really thinking for themselves; they're just blindly following the influencers' choices.

原文：Honestly speaking, I believe that Kelly and Paul are both right. Following influencers can certainly accelerate the speed to get latest information but paying too much attention to influencers can easily destroy followers' independent mind and wrap them into the prison of same information. So I maintain that the effect of influencers is complicated because it all depends on themselves to determine whether to bring negative or positive effect. For example, a well-known influencer can easily lead cyberbullying to an ordinary man, while his previous posts being all positive ones. Therefore, the effect of social media influencers is not black-or-white and their deeds determine what kind of effect they can bring to their followers.

点评：

相关性与展开：切题并能呼应同学观点，但主张偏“模棱两可”。题干要求对“总体上”正负作判断，建议给出“on balance”的明确立场，并用2–3个可检验的机制（算法放大、从众/社交证明、虚假信息与网络暴力）支撑。
语言与句式：存在若干搭配与语法问题：
- “accelerate the speed to get latest information” → “accelerate access to the latest information”
- “independent mind” → “independent thinking”
- “wrap them into the prison of same information” → “trap them in an echo chamber”
- “depends on themselves” 代词不清；“lead cyberbullying to” → “incite/fuel cyberbullying against”；
- “black-or-white” → “black-and-white”。
  建议增加让步、原因、结果等复合句与名词化表达（e.g., “algorithmic amplification,” “parasocial trust,” “uncritical consumption”）。
结构：可按“立场—回应A与B—机制论证—对策—结论”组织，过渡词更清晰（However, Moreover, Consequently, On balance 等）。

修改：
Social media influencers generally have a negative effect on followers unless strong guardrails are in place. I agree with Kelly that they deliver information quickly, but speed is not the same as judgment. As Paul suggests, algorithmic amplification rewards novelty and outrage, nudging audiences toward impulse purchases and simplified opinions. Parasocial trust—the feeling that you “know” a creator—also weakens skepticism; a casual endorsement can empty store shelves, and the same dynamics can fuel harassment or spread misinformation.
To counter these risks, platforms should require clear sponsorship disclosures and evidence for health or finance claims, while schools teach media literacy so followers learn to verify sources and diversify their feeds. Until such safeguards are routine, the net effect skews negative: influencers capture attention efficiently, but too often at the cost of independent thinking and responsible choice.

范文：
Influencers generally have a positive effect because they lower the cost of discovery and build communities around expertise. Beyond fashion, credible creators compress complex topics—financial literacy, study skills, even first-aid—into accessible lessons, and they connect niche makers with audiences that traditional media overlooked. Kelly is right that this speed is valuable; what matters is whether the incentives reward substance.
The risks Paul notes are real: echo chambers and herd behavior can turn a recommendation into blind imitation. The remedy, however, is to raise standards rather than dismiss the medium. Platforms can require transparent ad labels and penalize demonstrably false claims; educators can equip students with media-literacy habits like cross-checking and source triangulation. When attention is steered toward accountable content, the dominant influence becomes aspirational and informational rather than manipulative. On balance, influencers expand access to knowledge and opportunity—provided we align the rules and skills that govern how we follow them.

可复用词汇与搭配：

on balance / net effect（总体而言/净效应）
algorithmic amplification（算法放大）
parasocial trust / parasocial dynamics（拟社会信任/关系）
echo chamber / filter bubble（回声室/信息茧房）
social proof and herd behavior（社会认同与从众）
impulse buying / uncritical consumption（冲动消费/不加批判的消费）
transparent sponsorship disclosures（透明的赞助披露）
fact-checking and source triangulation（事实核查与来源三角校验）
media literacy and digital hygiene（媒介素养与数字卫生）
align incentives with accountability（将激励与问责对齐）

TPO 75¶

Problem: Attracting people to live in rural areas

Professor's Question: Let's think about population trends in urban and rural areas (villages). Living in urban areas can be expensive; nonetheless, when they have a choice of where to live, people in some countries do not wish to live in rural areas even if the cost of living there is lower. If governments of some countries want to attract more people to live in rural areas or villages, what is the best strategy or approach that governments can use? Why?
Student A's Answer: I would live in a rural area if the government gave more financial help to farmers. Although it may cost very little to live in a rural area, it costs a lot to begin a career in agriculture. If I had financial help, I would start my own farm and be happy to live in a rural area.
Student B's Answer: In my country, urban centers are great places to live because you can access shops, restaurants, and museums. If the government of my country wanted to attract me to live in a rural area, the area would first have to attract more businesses focused on entertainment and culture than most rural areas have now.

原文： I agree with the idea that financial help and better accessibility to entertaining and cultural businesses can attract more people to live in rural areas. Nevertheless, I believe the key of improving rural areas' attraction is to point out that there are a number of advantages to live a rural life rather than tolerating urban lives. For instance, the best things living in villages can give you are clean air, healthy food and better accessibility to the wild. If a family realize living in rural areas can provide children a better childhood, promoting better physical and mental culture without the cost of education, then I think they will be likely to move to rural areas.

点评：

相关性：紧扣题干，但“最佳策略”未落到具体政策（如宽带、学校、医疗、交通/住房补贴），更像价值宣介。建议给出一项最有力的政策杠杆并论证其因果链。
论证展开：有“优势→举例”的思路，但缺少数据/机制解释（为什么这些优势能转化为迁居行为）。可加入“家庭决策的核心约束：教育与医疗可得性 + 就业机会（远程/通勤）”，形成闭环。
语言与搭配：存在若干不地道或语法问题：the key of → the key to; advantages to live → advantages of living; tolerating urban lives（语义偏激）; accessibility to the wild（搭配不自然）; If a family realize → realizes。可提升名词化与并列结构，使用更自然的政策类搭配（public services, reliable broadband, relocation grants）。
可操作修改：确立“家庭优先的公共服务包”为最佳策略：投入学校+医疗+宽带，配以住房与托育补贴；用一段因果链解释为何能“扭转净流出”。

修改：
If governments want a single, high-leverage approach, they should adopt a family-centered public-services package in rural areas: invest first in quality schools, reliable healthcare, and universal broadband, and pair these with targeted housing and childcare subsidies. Financial aid and cultural amenities matter, but families ultimately relocate when the core costs and risks of raising children fall and jobs become portable.
In practice, better schools and clinics reduce parents’ perceived risk, while broadband enables remote work and local entrepreneurship. Clean air, fresh food, and access to nature then become decisive “quality-of-life dividends” rather than luxuries people cannot afford. With transparent school outcomes, guaranteed primary care, and a modest relocation grant, many households would rationally choose rural living—not to “tolerate” cities less, but because rural areas finally meet their non-negotiables.

范文：
The most effective way to draw people to villages is a services-first strategy: guarantee excellent schools and accessible healthcare and back them with universal rural broadband. Cost of living alone rarely moves families; what decides is whether they can educate their children well, see a doctor without traveling hours, and keep a good job.
First, upgrading rural schools—teacher-recruitment bonuses, small-class funding, and published learning outcomes—directly lowers the perceived risk of moving. Second, staffed clinics and telemedicine hubs make routine and urgent care feasible. Third, broadband transforms the local labor market: it unlocks remote jobs, supports small firms, and brings modern services to town. With these pillars in place, modest relocation grants and mortgage support simply tip the balance.
This approach does more than beautify villages; it removes binding constraints. When essentials are reliable, the natural advantages of rural life—clean air, fresh produce, and safe outdoor play—turn into compelling reasons to stay. That is why a services-first package outperforms one-off subsidies or entertainment projects.

可复用词汇与搭配：

a services-first strategy（以公共服务为先的策略）| A services-first strategy removes the main barriers to relocation.
family-centered public-services package（面向家庭的公共服务组合）| Adopt a family-centered public-services package in rural counties.
reliable broadband / universal broadband（可靠/普及的宽带）| Universal broadband makes remote work viable outside cities.
teacher-recruitment bonuses / loan forgiveness（教师引进奖金/学债减免）| Offer loan forgiveness to attract rural teachers and doctors.
relocation grants / housing subsidies / childcare subsidies（搬迁补贴/住房补贴/托育补贴）| Targeted relocation grants can tip the balance for young families.
anchor institutions（“锚型”公共机构，学校/医院等）| Strengthening anchor institutions stabilizes local communities.
quality-of-life dividends（生活质量红利）| Rural living offers quality-of-life dividends once essentials are in place.
remove binding constraints（移除“约束项”）| The policy works because it removes binding constraints on families.
crowd in private investment（撬动民间投资）| Better schools crowd in private investment in housing and services.
tip the balance（起决定性作用）| Modest grants can tip the balance when services are already strong.

TPO 74¶

Problem: Economy vs. Environment—should growth ever justify environmental harm?

Professor's Question: This week, we'll study an issue that is often debated by economists. There are many large industries that, while providing significant economic benefits, engage in practices that result in environmental harm. Some would argue that economic success should never come at the cost of damage to the environment. Do you agree with this view? Why or why not?
Student A's Answer: I can't say I agree. Everyone talks about protecting natural resources, but what about protecting humans? Humans need the ability to work and provide for their families, and sometimes this means creating jobs through industries that might contribute to pollution. Those industries can just be monitored by environmental agencies. That's a win-win solution.
Student B's Answer: I see your point, Paul, but I don't think there are many industries that are so essential for the economy that their impact on the environment can be ignored or merely "monitored." Continual environmental damage will one day lead to the extinction of species that are essentials to agriculture. That will endanger our food chain.

原文： Paul presents a compelling idea that economic progress at the cost of harming the environment is affordable. Admittedly, some industries could provide more jobs and and make more contribution to the society with their pollution monitored by relevant agencies, which may lead to a win-win situation. However, it is not negotiable to sacrifice long-term future to pursue short-term economic progress. Pollution within a few years may not accumulate too much to harm our lives, but in the future, it will definitely affect our descendants' lives. Uncontrolled waste water, polluted gas, noise pollution ... each of them will do harm to human's health and threaten spice diversity, which will cut down the recovery abilities of biosphere and finally boost the breakdown of biosphere. So, no matter how eagerly the economic society desires development, any terms of pollution should be strictly controlled.

点评：

相关性与立场：回应了教授问题并表明“不能以环境为代价”的立场，但缺少“政府应采取的最佳策略”的明确指向（如严格排放上限+价格机制+过渡支持）。
论证展开：有短期/长期对比与健康、物种多样性风险，但未解释“监测为何不足→需要何种工具”的因果链；可加入“强制标准+独立审计+污染定价+就业转型”使论证闭环。
语言与搭配：存在用词与语法问题：and and（重复）；make more contribution → make greater contributions；the key of → the key to；it is not negotiable → it is non-negotiable；spice diversity → species diversity；polluted gas → air pollution/emitted gases；breakdown of biosphere → systemic collapse of ecosystems。句式以简单陈述为主，建议增加让步、条件、名词化和平行结构。
可操作建议：明确“最佳策略”为严格上限 + 污染定价 + 公正转型（caps, pricing, just transition），并用两段说明“为何监测不够”和“如何同时保障就业与环境”。

修改： I disagree that economic gains can be “afforded” at the environment’s expense. Monitoring alone rarely prevents harm; governments need a caps-and-pricing approach paired with a just transition. Set binding emission caps and require independent audits, then price residual pollution so firms internalize costs rather than shift them to public health.
This approach answers Paul’s concern about jobs: revenues from pollution pricing can fund retraining and relocation support for workers while directing investment toward cleaner technologies. Kelly is right that ecological damage can undermine food systems; biodiversity loss and contaminated air and water raise long-run costs that dwarf short-term growth.
When strict standards make clean production the default, the benefits of growth and a stable environment reinforce each other. For that reason, economic success should not come at the cost of environmental damage; instead, policy must make sustainable production the only profitable option.

范文： I agree that economic success should never come at the expense of environmental damage, and the most effective government strategy is to make pollution unprofitable. The policy package is simple: hard caps on emissions, transparent third-party audits, and pollution pricing whose revenue funds a just transition for workers.
Caps set the ecological limits first and stop the worst harms rather than merely measuring them. Audits reduce greenwashing and regulatory capture. Pricing the remaining emissions ensures firms pay for the risks they create, pushing capital toward cleaner processes. With these rules in place, a transition fund can underwrite retraining, temporary wage insurance, and targeted investment in clean industries so communities do not bear all the adjustment costs.
Supporters of “jobs first” policies overlook that damaged ecosystems—soil degradation, water contamination, species loss—destroy the very foundations of future growth. By removing the incentive to pollute and cushioning workers, a caps-and-pricing model secures both prosperity and a livable environment. That is not anti-growth; it is how responsible economies grow without breaching planetary limits.

可复用词汇与搭配：

short-term gains vs. long-term costs | Policies must weigh short-term gains against long-term costs to health and ecosystems.
internalize externalities（将外部性内生化）| Pricing emissions internalizes environmental externalities.
binding caps / enforceable standards | Binding caps make clean production non-optional.
independent audits / third-party verification | Independent audits curb greenwashing.
just transition（公正转型）| A just transition protects workers during decarbonization.
make X the only profitable option | Standards and pricing make clean technology the only profitable option.
ecological tipping points / irreversible damage | Crossing ecological tipping points leads to irreversible damage.
public-health burden | Pollution shifts a public-health burden onto communities.
crowd in private investment | Stable rules crowd in private investment in clean industries.
monitoring vs. mitigation | Monitoring without mitigation invites continued harm.

遣词造句¶

言论自由与不可侵犯性（权利类）

中文：言论自由作为人类一项至关重要的权力不能以任何形式受到侵犯。
原句：The freedom of speech, as an essential right for human, can not be violated by any means.
点评：抽象名词前冠词多余；human 用法不当；“by any means”语义跑偏；正误写法为 cannot。
修改 A：Freedom of speech, as a fundamental human right, must not be infringed in any form.
修改 B：Freedom of speech—a fundamental human right—is inviolable under any circumstances.

原因与细节：

抽象概念前通常不用定冠词：freedom of speech（不用 the）。
“for human”不地道，应为 human right / right of all humans。
法律语境 prefer “must not be infringed / is inviolable”，比 “cannot be violated…by any means”更贴切。
in any form / under any circumstances 比 by any means 更符合“任何形式/情况下”。

可复用词汇与搭配：

fundamental / inalienable / non-derogable right
infringe / violate a right; encroach on liberties
in any form; under any circumstances; by no means
safeguard / uphold freedoms

政府职能转型（公共政策类）

中文：国家已经不再履行许多之前的经济职能，大多数是监管措施，但也有一些是社会福利措施。
原句：Countries nowadays do not serve many of previous economic functions, most of which are monitoring ones, but also social welfare.
点评：主语应为 governments；serve functions 不地道；monitoring 应换 regulatory；并列名词化更整齐。
修改 A：Nowadays, governments have shed many of their former economic functions, retaining mainly regulatory responsibilities and some social-welfare provision.
修改 B：Governments no longer perform many of their previous economic functions; most remaining roles are regulatory, with a subset concerning social welfare.

原因与细节：

政府履职：perform/discharge/assume functions；shed/scale back 表缩减。
regulatory（监管的）比 monitoring ones 更自然。
“社会福利措施”名词化为 social-welfare provision/programs，保证并列词性一致。
通过分号连接两分句，逻辑更清晰。

可复用词汇与搭配：

perform / discharge / assume functions; scale back / shed roles
regulatory responsibilities / oversight / enforcement
social-welfare provision / programs / safety net
the state’s economic footprint; roll back intervention

进入职场的前提与优先级（教育就业类）

中文：在当时，掌握人际交往技能曾是大学毕业生迈入社会之前的首要任务。
原句：At that time, it was an emergency for graduates to master interpersonal skills.
点评：emergency 语义错误；应使用 priority/prerequisite；补足“进入职场”的自然表达。
修改 A：At the time, mastering interpersonal skills was a top priority for university graduates before entering the workforce.
修改 B：At the time, mastering interpersonal skills was a prerequisite for university graduates seeking to enter the workforce.

原因与细节：

emergency=紧急事件；此处应为 priority（优先事项）或 prerequisite（前提条件）。
enter the workforce / transition into the workplace 为地道表达“迈入社会/职场”。
seeking to… 使逻辑更顺畅（目的状语）。

可复用词汇与搭配：

a top/pressing priority; a prerequisite for…
interpersonal / people / soft skills
enter / transition into the workforce; make the school-to-work transition
be essential / indispensable to…

稳定收入与满足感（职场情绪类）

中文：朝九晚五的高薪工作已经给大多数工薪阶层带来了满足感。
原句：A sense of satisfaction has been brought to most salaried employees by a high-salary job from nine to five.
点评：被动冗长；high-salary 不自然；nine-to-five 需连字符；搭配建议 give/provide sb with…
修改 A：Well-paid nine-to-five jobs have given most salaried employees a sense of satisfaction.
修改 B：Stable, well-paid nine-to-five work has long provided many wage earners with a sense of satisfaction.

原因与细节：

well-paid / high-paying 比 high-salary 更常用。
主动语态更简洁自然：X have given/provided Y with…
nine-to-five 作为定语需连字符；wage earners 与 salaried employees 视语境替换。

可复用词汇与搭配：

well-paid / high-paying job; steady / stable employment
nine-to-five work/schedule; white-collar / blue-collar roles
provide / give sb (with) a sense of satisfaction / fulfillment / security
derive / gain satisfaction from…