各位好，最近準備TOEFL，比較頭痛的是speaking和writing的部分
今天做了TPO 25的Integrated Writing Task，探討古代陶罐是否被當成電池使用
我打了以下的文章，結構如下
1. 說明兩方論點不同
2. 文章第一段的論點，和講者的反駁點
3. 文章第二段的論點，和講者的反駁點
4. 文章第三段的論點，和講者的反駁點
5. 摘要講者的三個重點，並摘要講者的結論
但是我發現網路上找到的範文架構都不是這樣
特別是1. 連OG 5分範文也沒有提出文章的論點，重點著重在寫出講者的論點
2. 不見得有最後一段摘要
我想請問我應該著重在於把講者的論點多打一點，還是文章和講者的論點都要平衡報導？
因為我總覺得只打講者的論點似乎不是完整的文章，不知道TOEFL要求的是哪一種？
謝謝大家
附上我打的文章：
The passage said that clay jars containing copper cylinders surrounding by
iron rods were not likely to be used as electric batteries. However, the
lecturer argues against the passage and provided standpoints that the clay
jars could have been use as batteries.
To begin with, the passage pointed out that the clay jars could not be used
as batteries because there were no evidences of conductors. And since
batteries would likely to be connected with conductors, the absence of
conductors argued against the theory that the clay jar was used as batteries.
However, the lecture pointed out that these clay jars were discovered by
villagers, which are lay person and not professional archaeologist.
Therefore, the conductors could have been missed or overlooked as
uninteresting objects.
Secondly, the passage said that the cylinder was similar to cylinders found
in the ruins of Seleucia. In Seleucia, the copper cylinders were used for
holding sacred text scrolls. Since the cylinders share similar appearance,
the recently discovered cylinders were also likely to be used to hold text
scrolls rather than used to generate electricity. On the other hand, the
lecturer argued that although the cylinders discovered in these two places
are similar, it cannot be used to prove anything. It was also be possible
that the cylinder was used initially to hold text scrolls as used in
Seleucia, but later adapted to a new role of generating electricity.
Finally, the passage concluded that there was no known usage of electricity
at ancient time. Therefore, a battery would be useless to ancient people. The
lecturer stated that there were many possible usages of electricity even in
the ancient time. She said that electricity could deliver mild shock or
tingling sensation, which can be inferred to signs of magical powers or
invisible powers. The electricity could also be used for healing process and
to relieve pains and aches, much like the ways we do in modern time.
Therefore, there were possible usages of electricity in the ancient world.
In conclusion, the lecturer said that the conductors could be missed during
archaeological discovery process, and that the similarity of cylinders did
not mean that the cylinders could only be used to hold text scrolls. She
finished her argument that there were possible usages of electricity in the
ancient world. Based on the above reasons, the lecturer said that it was
possible that the clay jar was used as battery in ancient times.
--
今天做了TPO 25的Integrated Writing Task，探討古代陶罐是否被當成電池使用
我打了以下的文章，結構如下
1. 說明兩方論點不同
2. 文章第一段的論點，和講者的反駁點
3. 文章第二段的論點，和講者的反駁點
4. 文章第三段的論點，和講者的反駁點
5. 摘要講者的三個重點，並摘要講者的結論
但是我發現網路上找到的範文架構都不是這樣
特別是1. 連OG 5分範文也沒有提出文章的論點，重點著重在寫出講者的論點
2. 不見得有最後一段摘要
我想請問我應該著重在於把講者的論點多打一點，還是文章和講者的論點都要平衡報導？
因為我總覺得只打講者的論點似乎不是完整的文章，不知道TOEFL要求的是哪一種？
謝謝大家
附上我打的文章：
The passage said that clay jars containing copper cylinders surrounding by
iron rods were not likely to be used as electric batteries. However, the
lecturer argues against the passage and provided standpoints that the clay
jars could have been use as batteries.
To begin with, the passage pointed out that the clay jars could not be used
as batteries because there were no evidences of conductors. And since
batteries would likely to be connected with conductors, the absence of
conductors argued against the theory that the clay jar was used as batteries.
However, the lecture pointed out that these clay jars were discovered by
villagers, which are lay person and not professional archaeologist.
Therefore, the conductors could have been missed or overlooked as
uninteresting objects.
Secondly, the passage said that the cylinder was similar to cylinders found
in the ruins of Seleucia. In Seleucia, the copper cylinders were used for
holding sacred text scrolls. Since the cylinders share similar appearance,
the recently discovered cylinders were also likely to be used to hold text
scrolls rather than used to generate electricity. On the other hand, the
lecturer argued that although the cylinders discovered in these two places
are similar, it cannot be used to prove anything. It was also be possible
that the cylinder was used initially to hold text scrolls as used in
Seleucia, but later adapted to a new role of generating electricity.
Finally, the passage concluded that there was no known usage of electricity
at ancient time. Therefore, a battery would be useless to ancient people. The
lecturer stated that there were many possible usages of electricity even in
the ancient time. She said that electricity could deliver mild shock or
tingling sensation, which can be inferred to signs of magical powers or
invisible powers. The electricity could also be used for healing process and
to relieve pains and aches, much like the ways we do in modern time.
Therefore, there were possible usages of electricity in the ancient world.
In conclusion, the lecturer said that the conductors could be missed during
archaeological discovery process, and that the similarity of cylinders did
not mean that the cylinders could only be used to hold text scrolls. She
finished her argument that there were possible usages of electricity in the
ancient world. Based on the above reasons, the lecturer said that it was
possible that the clay jar was used as battery in ancient times.
--
All Comments