托福寫(xiě)作20分什么水平

　　曾經(jīng)一個(gè)針對(duì)中國(guó)幾所頂尖大學(xué)的作文的調(diào)查顯示，20 篇優(yōu)秀作文中名詞化的使用頻率為7%-8%，而普通習(xí)作的使用頻率僅為5%-6%。與此同時(shí)，選用了20 篇英語(yǔ)國(guó)家學(xué)生的英語(yǔ)作文，同樣的方法統(tǒng)計(jì)出其名詞化的使用頻率為10%-15%。

　　托福寫(xiě)作輔導(dǎo)中提到老外眼中句子分為3個(gè)檔次，最差的是主動(dòng)句，較好的是被動(dòng)句，倒裝句等，最好的nominalization(名詞化)的句子，這樣的句子最學(xué)術(shù)最適合寫(xiě)論文。那么面對(duì)這樣的差異，我們需要重新審視我們寫(xiě)作中的思維方式，做到如何恰到好處又不“畫(huà)蛇添足”。

　　簡(jiǎn)單說(shuō)，名詞化即是動(dòng)詞或形容詞被用作名詞的現(xiàn)象。

　　比如動(dòng)詞轉(zhuǎn)成名詞：discovery->discovery， move->movement， refuse->refusal，又比如形容詞轉(zhuǎn)成名詞：careless->carelessness， difficult->difficulty， intense->intensity。那么什么情況下，我們需要進(jìn)行名詞化呢?

　　A. 謂語(yǔ)動(dòng)詞的賓語(yǔ)部分

　　原句：I do not know either what she meant or what he intends.

　　名詞化：I do not know either her meaning or his intentions.

　　B. 結(jié)合被動(dòng)形式

　　原句：If people decide without enough persuasive information, ...

　　名詞化：If a decision is made without enough persuasive information, ...

　　打開(kāi)托福寫(xiě)作突破口

　　1.熟悉可能涉及的話(huà)題

　　可用official guide提供的185個(gè)topics，或去下載題庫(kù)，然后反復(fù)閱讀題目。

　　185個(gè)topics從托福獨(dú)立寫(xiě)作模式上分可分為：

　　解釋現(xiàn)象類(lèi)：(如解釋一下為什么現(xiàn)代人的壽命比以前的長(zhǎng))

　　對(duì)立觀點(diǎn)類(lèi)：

　　給出兩個(gè)對(duì)立的事物或者一個(gè)事物對(duì)立的兩個(gè)方面，要求考生支持一方并進(jìn)行說(shuō)明或給出兩個(gè)對(duì)立事物或一個(gè)事物對(duì)立的兩個(gè)方面，要求考生說(shuō)明二者為什么不同或比較它們的優(yōu)缺點(diǎn)，并給出理由(Some people like different friends. Other likes similar friends. Compare the advantages of these two kinds of friends. Which kind of friend do you prefer? Explain why.)

　　2.形成自己的答案資源庫(kù)　　熟悉了寫(xiě)作題目之后，就要準(zhǔn)備自己的答案資源庫(kù)了。

　　自己的資源庫(kù)要包括：同一類(lèi)題目的通用觀點(diǎn)，有針對(duì)性的例證(不一定都要背名人典故，可以從自身取材，自給自足)。這些內(nèi)容都是要自己去深思，需要有人點(diǎn)撥，才能形成一個(gè)清晰的構(gòu)架和寫(xiě)作流程的。我的習(xí)慣就是羊毛出在羊身上，來(lái)源于彼，還原于彼。

　　3.線(xiàn)性思維，總——分——總

　　在新托福獨(dú)立寫(xiě)作中，用這總分總種思維最容易獲得高分，所以你要在平時(shí)的練習(xí)中一定要注意寫(xiě)作的結(jié)構(gòu)。托福作文應(yīng)該寫(xiě)成三個(gè)層次，也就是我們確立了中心思想后應(yīng)該找到三條理由來(lái)支持�！　⊥懈�寫(xiě)作高分作文

　　題目：　　In modern life, it is no longer necessary to use animals as food and in other products like clothing and medicines. To what extent do you agree or disagree?　　現(xiàn)今已經(jīng)不再需要屠殺動(dòng)物，并將其制成食品或者其他產(chǎn)品例如衣物或者醫(yī)藥。你是否同意這種觀點(diǎn)?　　范文：　　Trying to live without exploiting animals for food, clothing or medicine can be a healthy lifestyle, except that that would probably never become a fashion. People in the modern world seem to agree that it is not 100 percent justified to eat meat, clothe in leather, or use animals as medical research subjects; nevertheless, very few people would like to choose to live the vegan way for the benefits of animals, people and the planet. The case for animal rights is likely to go nowhere simply because people can have a choice but animals cannot.

　　It would be out of the question to imagine that non-human animals could voice their own opinions. As it is, the question whether animals have rights as humans do has never been considered seriously. More recently, however, pro-animal and vegan groups have joined forces in supporting one basic right for animals: the right not to be property. Roughly speaking, people take it for granted that they own the world which they actually do. Of course, the animal welfare movement is being promoted to illustrate no more than moral conscience, certainly with little, if any, cognitive knowledge of, or obvious understanding from animals themselves. As a result, amid various points of view, a parallel argument is that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals as resources so long as there is no unnecessary suffering.

　　On the other hand, even today common sense seems to imply that humans are licensed to kill animals for food, clothing or medicine. As if authorized by Heaven, people also make animals suffer in other things, including hard labor in farms and transportation as well as entertainment in circus shows. Discussed as a whole, this is more an issue on habitual necessity, or religious, ethnic and health backgrounds, rather than on mere survival .

　　Although the vegan way of life is a healthy choice, most people cannot accept eating a plant-based diet, nor can they avoid using animal by-products for many purposes. Given that plants can theoretically feed, cover and cure, there is nothing like what comes from animals. In short, talking about sparing animals and leaving them alone is too cheap to carry weight since not every person is willing to be a vegan in the real sense of the word.

　　In all appearances, the animal debate attracts some attention but does not lead to enough action to reduce the pain of animals. Without wearing something like leather jackets and knowing to use medicines from animals, for instance, humans are in part similar to the omnivorous rats that eat anything . So, it is next to impossible for people to change the carnivorous habits and become entirely herbivorous because humans are not born vegans.

　　Trying to live without exploiting animals for food, clothing or medicine can be a healthy lifestyle, except that that would probably never become a fashion. People in the modern world seem to agree that it is not 100 percent justified to eat meat, clothe in leather, or use animals as medical research subjects; nevertheless, very few people would like to choose to live the vegan way for the benefits of animals, people and the planet. The case for animal rights is likely to go nowhere simply because people can have a choice but animals cannot.

　　It would be out of the question to imagine that non-human animals could voice their own opinions. As it is, the question whether animals have rights as humans do has never been considered seriously. More recently, however, pro-animal and vegan groups have joined forces in supporting one basic right for animals: the right not to be property. Roughly speaking, people take it for granted that they own the world which they actually do. Of course, the animal welfare movement is being promoted to illustrate no more than moral conscience, certainly with little, if any, cognitive knowledge of, or obvious understanding from animals themselves. As a result, amid various points of view, a parallel argument is that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals as resources so long as there is no unnecessary suffering.

　　On the other hand, even today common sense seems to imply that humans are licensed to kill animals for food, clothing or medicine. As if authorized by Heaven, people also make animals suffer in other things, including hard labor in farms and transportation as well as entertainment in circus shows. Discussed as a whole, this is more an issue on habitual necessity, or religious, ethnic and health backgrounds, rather than on mere survival . Although the vegan way of life is a healthy choice, most people cannot accept eating a plant-based diet, nor can they avoid using animal by-products for many purposes. Given that plants can theoretically feed, cover and cure, there is nothing like what comes from animals. In short, talking about sparing animals and leaving them alone is too cheap to carry weight since not every person is willing to be a vegan in the real sense of the word.

　　In all appearances, the animal debate attracts some attention but does not lead to enough action to reduce the pain of animals. Without wearing something like leather jackets and knowing to use medicines from animals, for instance, humans are in part similar to the omnivorous rats that eat anything . So, it is next to impossible for people to change the carnivorous habits and become entirely herbivorous because humans are not born vegans.