【托福写作机经】2024年9月1日【上午场】托福考试回忆

2024-11-22 15:02:21来源：网络

【考试动态】2019年SAT考试时间报名费用报考指南成绩查询送分流程成绩要求成绩换算
【资料推荐】SAT词汇巴朗3500系列SAT阅读OG1-8经典错题解析SAT数学满分冲刺重要知识点
【备考指导】CB发布2018年SAT考试官方报告SAT北美考点汇总美国大学TOP100SAT成绩要求

　　2024年9月1日上午场的托福考已经成为回忆，新东方在线SAT考试网为大家整理了此次考试的托福写作机经，让我们一起来回顾和分析这次的写作考查内容。

托福写作机经

综合写作

阅读

听力

主题：控制新几内亚扁形虫传播的方案的有效性分析

1. 生物控制。一是可以在新几内亚找到这种扁形虫的捕食者来吃它;是让欧洲本土的鸟或爬行动物吃它;

Biological Control

In this method, a predatory animal is used to attack the unwanted invasive species, reducing its population. Scientists are looking for a predator that could be deployed against the invasive New Guinea flatworm in Europe. One possibility would be importing a natural predator of the flatworm from New Guinea: another possibility would be relying on a local European bird or reptile that finds the flatworm an attractive source of food.

1. 一方面，这种扁形虫在新几内亚并没有任何捕食者，另一方面，欧洲本土的鸟类和爬行动物也不会吃它，因为它的肉是酸的，并不好吃。

2. 化学控制。用一种不伤害其他动物的杀虫剂来消灭 flatworm。

Chemical Control

In this method, chemical pesticides are used to kill unwanted populations of an invasive species. Scientists are searching for an appropriate pesticide that could effectively reduce the populations of the New Guinea flatworm without harming other species.

2. 大部分杀虫剂都不能消灭新几内亚扁形虫。只有一种名为 lindane的杀虫剂可以消灭它，但是同时还会消灭其他动物，所以使用这种杀虫剂得不偿失。

3. 土壤消毒sterilizing the soil pots。扁形虫生存在盆裁植物中，并且它不耐高温。所以只要将所有进口的盆栽植物在 50摄氏度的水里过滤下，扁形虫就会被消灭。

Soil Sterilization

Since the New Guinea flatworm is transported in the soil of potted plants, the spread of the flatworm could be prevented by properly sterilizing the soil in the pots. Flatworms are vulnerable to heat, so they and their eggs could be killed if imported potted plants were dipped in hot water (around 50°C). If European governments required that the soil of imported plants be treated in this way, they could help prevent the further spread of the New Guinea flatworm.

3. 土壤消毒不能消灭所有扁形虫。盆栽植物中有很多泥土，即使将盆栽植物倾倒出来，还有一部分依附在植物深处泥土中的扁形虫并不会被高温杀死。

学术讨论

　　Your professor is teaching a class on sociology. Write a post responding to the professor’s question.

　　In your response, you should

　　· express and support your personal opinion

　　· make a contribution to the discussion in your own words

　　An effective response will contain at least 100 words. You have ten minutes to write.

　　Doctor Achebe:This week, we’ll be discussing ways to address air pollution. 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?

　　Kelly: 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.

　　Paul: 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.

　　范文：

　　I am inclined to agree with Paul's perspective that environmental taxes on air travel will not significantly curb air pollution. This is because that the primary patrons of air travel are the wealthy upper class, such as billionaires and corporate executives, who frequently travel for international business meetings, high-profile events, and luxury vacations. Some even own private jets to avoid traffic during rush hours; for example, a billionaire might use a private jet to attend a business meeting in another city on the same day. They typically would not mind paying extra dollars for the comfort and speed offered by air travel. Consequently, this large group of people, unaffected by the policy, will not reduce airplane emissions. As for those less affluent, such as middle-class families who may save for months to afford an air ticket to a holiday destination like Bali or Hawaii, they are sure to suffer from the policy. However, the emissions caused by these annual family vacation only constitute too small a proportion to make a substantial difference. In conclusion, I believe governments should not impose such a policy to curb air pollution.