托福考试：11月29日托福考试详细机经！配写作范文、口语高分录音！

Task 1（重复2019年4月17日在家考真题）

　　Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

　　The professor who have received good evaluations from students should be promoted.

　　教授应不应该因为学生的积极评价而升职加薪？

　　参考答案

　　Personally,I don’t think it’s a good idea to promote professors who have received good evaluations from students.

　　First,because for most of the time,students just give good evaluations to save time.I mean most evaluations are done at last class or at the last week of the semester.It’s really a busy time for students,because they are so preoccupied with all these final papers,and exams,so they may just give good evaluations to save themselves from troubles without even thinking about the details.Like I have done that all the time at collage,and I know all my friends did the same.Second,good evaluations should not be the only aspect to consider when university decide to promote a professor.There are more important things that we should attach importance to,like,research projects,achievements in certain field,and contributions to the society.

　　Task 2

　　阅读：

　　学校的历史学院要创建和维护历史课程的网站，有课上补充的素材，还有讨论区。

　　听力：听力女生同意。

　　1.上课可能会遗漏信息，有了网站方便多了。而且以前记录的东西可能丢失，但是现在有网站随时可以查看，另外网站素材还可以替换补充；

　　2.增加了互动，课后想到问题可以和同学讨论或者在网上问老师。

　　Task 3：心理学话题

　　阅读：pro-con close，卖产品过去只说好的，现在说好的和坏的，顾客更信服

　　听力：例子是房地产销售过去业绩平平，用了这个方法后很好用，一次卖给一对夫妻房子就用上了，地板不好，但是地址和光线好，销售就很成功。

　　Task 4：生物话题

　　听力：昆虫的飞行，举了蜻蜓和一种bumblebee的例子。听力前面解释昆虫需要产生热量提供给肌肉，所以才可以飞行，但是冷血动物需要其他方式供热，然后解释用太阳能量供热，一大摞解释才提到蜻蜓用大面积身体获得太阳能，然后就是bee是靠运动来产生热量。

　　【写作部分】

　　综合点评

　　这次托福考试写作部分整体难度适中，综合写作是以前旧题，独立写作在政府建设类新瓶装旧酒。其中，综合写作考查环境类，整体难度适中，生僻词汇较少。独立写作考查政府建设类话题，难度适中，属于新题，学生在备考过程中有关政府建设类积累相关思路和素材。

　　综合写作

　　话题分类：动物类

　　考题回忆：总论点：三种替代重石油的新能源

　　阅读部分：

　　分论点一：用biofuel代替，plant生产的biofuel取之不尽，用之不竭

　　分论点二：用氢气肯定renewable，而且已经有地方在用了

　　分论点三：用wind来带动sails，可让船员操作而且meet standard

　　听力部分：反对

　　分论点一：土地稀缺有干旱，plant只能用来吃不够biofuel

　　分论点二：原因暂缺。

　　分论点三：需要超远路，时间长，而且占地方，因为要有fuel cell，所以货载少利润低。

　　参考范文：

　　While the reading passage proposes three different new energy for cargo ships to replace heavy fuel oil,the professor in the listening material claims that none of these can be effective,which casts serious doubt on what have been proposed in the reading.

　　First,according to the passage,bio-fuel can be an alternative for fuel oil since it seems as an inexhaustible source of energy.However,the professor points out that this is impractical by further explaining that the agricultural produce in this area can merely feed local people and with limited arable land and drought,little plants can be used to produce bio-fuel.Thus,it is quite obvious that the suggestion in the reading is less convincing.

　　Second,it is said in the reading that hydrogen is renewable and has been applied in many parts of the world.This has been attacked by the professor who believes that

　　Finally,although the author of the reading claim that wind can be used to generate power for sails,which can be easily operated and meet standards,the speaker argues that this is extremely time-consuming due to extremely distant destinations,and this is less profitable because the fuel cell in the ships leads to lower capacity of cargo.

　　独立写作

　　话题分类：政府建设类

　　考题回忆：

　　Is it always right for governments to ask people move their businesses and houses to provide space for the construction of large structures?

　　解题思路：写作思路：

　　要点：注意题目中包含always这个语义偏绝对意义的词

　　建议先写让步反驳段：让人们搬迁是有好处的，可以提供更多的空间带来更好的规划和发展。但这并不一定always right。

　　要反驳always可以写搬迁可能伤害当地居民。

　　范文：

　　It is common these days that most cities have been redesigned with some old buildings torn down and news construction built up.Although some claim that it is always the right thing to do for government to request for removal of original housing and commercial regions to build larger structures,I can hardly agree with this opinion.

　　It has to be admitted that construction of new structures can definitely lead to better planning and development.By that I mean in most parts of the world,many towns and cities were designed or built decades or centuries ago,which can hardly meet the demand for the swelling population size.Thus,it is a wise decision for local authorities to relocate and accommodation the people by completing a series of new constructions,like hospitals,roads or schools,in order to guarantee a comfortable and convenient living for every citizen.For example,in Chengdu,a city with a large population of over 13 million in China,every old housing unit in the city center has been removed and instead,new metro stations and railway lines have been under construction,bringing enormous benefits for local commuters who have been struggling in the bumper-to-bumper traffic on weekdays.So it is evident enough that new construction is the right thing for local governments to do,but is it always right for local governments to do so?This has been gaining serious doubts.

　　No one can deny that many local residents feel reluctant to leave their places.We all know such good virtues as being sacrificing personal interest for the communal benefits,but in fact,having been living for decades in their original places,many people are readily accustomed to living conditions,with little expectation or enthusiasm to migrate to other places.When knowing policies from the authorities,mandatory or not,local residents,with disappointment or anger,are likely to act aggressively to protest.For example,last year in my community,an 80-year-old man,suffering from chronic lung caner and lying on the bed,was asked to move out his house because his house and the entire neighbourhood were planned to be redeveloped into an overpass to alleviate urban traffic problems in rush hours.This old man insisted that he would rather die on the bed than move to other places and finally the construction ended up with failure.To some extent,local residents are not always satisfied with government policies.

　　In conclusion,I do admit that it is the right thing for government to relocate houses and businesses and build new constructions but if the authorities act against personal or public interest,it is absolutely wrong and unjustifiable.