2025年9月7日托福写作完整版答案及解析（含范文）

阅读

听力

　主题：prairie dog是否应该被保护

　　First, cattle farmers have long argued that prairie dogs should not be protected, because they are agricultural pests. The farmers point out that prairie dogs compete with cattle for grass that cattle graze on. Prairie dogs live in large groups that build networks of burrows underground and feed on the grass above their burrows. The farmers have argued that the loss of grass to prairie dogs creates a real economic problem for them.

　　First, the idea that the prairie dogs are serious tests is outdated. It originated in the early nineteen hundreds, and it makes sense at that time, but nowadays most of the cows raised in the US do not get their food by grazing freely on the grassland but by being fed processed feed in closed feeding areas. Grass is no longer as precious resource for cattle farmers as it once was. Furthermore, some studies indicate that prairie dog activities actually make the soil in the grasslands more fertile. So the presence of prairie dogs is actually beneficial to the growth of the glasses.

　　Second, prairie dogs may represent a serious health hazard, since they often become infected with plague, a dangerous bacterial disease that can infect people as well. Like many rodents, prairie dogs carry fleas, insects that can transmit the plague bacteria from prairie dogs to humans.

　　Second, it's extremely rare for plague to actually spread from prairie dogs to humans. One reason for this is that the type of flea that lives on the bodies of prairie dogs does not tend to live on human bodies. So the transmission of the plague by flees to humans is extremely unlikely. Let me give you some figures to illustrate how rare it is. In the state of Colorado, only ten people were infected with plagues who contacted with the prairie dogs in the last fifteen years.

　　Third, some people argue that prairie dogs do not have enough ecological importance to deserve special protection. According to this argument, it makes much more ecological sense to protect species at the top of the food chain-meat eaters such as wolves or bears-because those animals have a large impact on the balance of the whole ecosystem. Plant eaters like the prairie dogs have a more limited impact, and protecting them would not make much difference to the broader ecosystem.

　　Third, prairie dogs do play an important ecological role even though they are just plant eaters. For example, the underground borrows that prairie dogs create present an important habitat for other species. Animals like salamanders and snakes live in those burrows. Also, prairie dogs are a critical food service for dozens of predators. Foxes, coyotes and some rare species of predators as well. So the continued loss of prairie dogs would have a negative impact on many species in the prairie ecosystems.

阅读

听力

　主题：日本水下岩石结构

　　Ancient Civilization

　　First, there is evidence that an ancient civilization was present in the region around 10,000 years ago. At that time, the sea level was lower, and the structure would have been on dry land. Recent expeditions to the area have uncovered bones,pottery fragments, and parts of tools that are many thousands of years old. With this archaeological evidence, it's reasonable to hypothesize that ancient people living around the structure could have carved it when the area was not yet underwater.

　　First, it's true that ancient people lived in the area when the structure was on dry land. But would that civilization really have been capable of building something like this? The best way to know is to look at their tools. And the ancient artifacts found in the area do not include any large tools like stone axes that would have been needed to carve the structure. In fact, the oldest large tools researchers found in this region of japan were from a much later period when the rock structure itself was under water. Without large pools, an ancient civilization would not have been able to build this structure.

　　Features Designed for Human Use

　　Second, pictures of the structure reveal features that seem to be intended for human use (see illustration). For example, there is a section that appears to be a wide, flat platform with stairs along its sides, as well as several large rock pieces that are likely walls. The presence of stairs and walls suggests that the structure was made for human use and was built by humans. Based on such features, some archaeologists have proposed that the whole structure may be a remnant of an ancient city.

　　So what about the features seemingly designed for human use, such as stairs? Well, A closer look at those features tells a different story. Remember the picture of the so-called stairs with a human diver swimming next to them? If you compare the size of the diver with the size of the so-called stairs, it's clear that each stair is as much as a meter high which would make the stairs much too large to walk up comfortably. A person would have to jump from one stair to the next. No one would design a feature like this for human use. Therefore, we're likely seeing naturally formed features that only look like things humans create.

　　Straight Edges

　　Finally, the rock from the structure has very straight, clear edges. If the rocky structure had been created by a natural process such as water erosion, its edges would be round.

　　There are also several rock elements that intersect at sharp 90-degree angles. These straight edges and angles suggest that the rock was carved by humans rather than by waves and currents of the ocean, which would have left gentler curved edges.

　　Finally, it's true that the straight edges rule out a process like water erosion. But a different natural process may be responsible. The structure is made of a rock called sandstone. When sandstone is put under pressure, it breaks in straight lines and does not leave rough, uneven edges. This area experiences frequent earthquakes. An earthquake could have easily caused the sandstone to break. Which would explain all the straight edges we see in the structure. So the formation could have been made naturally, after all.

阅读

听力

　主题：Bird feeder的影响

　　First, feeders encourage many birds to gather in one place and thus facilitate the spread of diseases. A particularly pointed example of this may well be house finches, a species commonly drawn to feeders. This species has experienced an epidemic of infectious eye disease and its population has declined by 60 percent in the last decade. Feeders may have accelerated the spread of the disease by encouraging house finches to gather in concentrated numbers.

　　First, bird feeders do not contribute to the spread of bird diseases in a major way; natural factors play a much more important role. Take the spread of infectious eye disease among house finches. House finches are birds that tend to fly together in large groups. The groups are very active and constantly move to new areas, where they come in contact with other groups of finches. Because the groups are so large and because they move around, it’s easy to see how the eye disease was able to spread rapidly from one individual to the next and from one group to the next. Bird feeders didn’t really play a role in this.

　　Second, when people put feeders near their homes, they are exposing birds to several dangers. Predators such as hour cats and hawks find it easy to catch and eat birds that come to the feeders. Furthermore, when frightened birds attempt to escape from predators, they often fly directly into the windows of nearby houses and cars because they cannot see these dangerous obstacles. Millions of birds die from the combined effects of predators and window strike every year.

　　Second, while it’s true that birds are attracted by feeders are at risk of predator attacks, the benefits of additional nutrition that the feeders provide far outweigh those risks. Birds that have access to extra nutrition are likely to be strong and healthy and have much higher levels of reproductive success. They’re much more likely to successfully raise their young into adulthood. The additional numbers of healthy young birds more than make up the numbers of birds lost to the predator attacks. So, feeders actually help bird populations increase rather than cause their decline.

　　Third, bird feeders could encourage birds that typically migrate to warmer areas during the winter to remain in areas they would otherwise leave, thus disrupting the natural order. Birds delayed in their winter migration could be injured or killed by harsh weather they would otherwise have avoided, or they may miss their chance to pair up with mates because they arrived late to breeding grounds.

　　Third, birds would not delay their migration because of food in bird feeders. The main signal telling birds when they should migrate is sunlight. Most birds recognize it’s time to migrate because the days are getting shorter. Birds don’t use food availability as an important signal. So putting food in bird feeders as winter is coming doesn’t delay birds, it merely provides nutrition for birds that are already delayed for some other reason.