2017年7月1日托福写作真题名师解析

2017年07月01日托福写作考题回忆

综合

阅读介绍了美国将出台一个限制非本土动物进口及贸易的法律，列举了美国人反对该法律的三大原因：

1. 宠物主人担心自家外来宠物会因为该法律被强行带走；

2. 该法律实施成本过高；

3. 全国一刀切是不对的。

听力：

反对阅读观点：

1. 不会波及宠物主人，因为该法律只针对进口及动物贸易，而已经拥有的不作处理。；

2. 成本高是值得的，因为这些动物一旦造成生态破坏，需要花费更大成本去处理；如Burmese phyton(一种来自亚洲的蛇，可以长达5米)在佛罗里达州泛滥，花了很多钱才驱除。

3. 无法长久生存的、看似无害的外来动物一旦外逃也是很危险的。如Brazilian rabbits， 它们将一种病毒传染给当地兔子，导致当地99%的兔子死亡。

The reading passage lists three reasons why the law to forbid the import and selling of nonnative species is implausible. However, the lecturer gives perspectives to contradict all those theories.

First, the reading passage indicates that some pet owners will be forced to turn their pet over to the authorities. In fact, according to the lecturer, their pets don’t need to be forfeited because only import and selling of nonnative species will be restricted. The pets which has already imported will remain. Thus, the pets‘ owners don’t need to worry about the problem.

Second, as to the cost of implement, the professor claims that if the nonnative species bring negative impact to local ecosystem, the cost of solving the problem will be much more than carrying out the law now. Therefore, what the reading passage indicates is totally wrong.

Finally, the passages says that it is unreasonable to apply one same standard to all species. However, the professor claims that though some animal cannot breed in another country, they may carry fatal virus which can be transmitted to other animals. That is to say, even though the animals like Brazil rabbits cannot breed in the cold weather, they still need to be limited due to the virus.

(207 words)

独立

个人如果想要为环境保护做贡献，以下那种方式最好：

1.骑自行车或走路出行

2.回收利用废旧物品

3.购买当地有机食品

People have suffered from so many natural disasters in the past decades and all of them bring huge loss financially as well as take many lives. Accordingly, protect the environment is not only the matter of our current lives, but our children’s. As for me, I choose to take bicycle or on foot instead of taking transportation as long as I can.

We all know that one of the mainly sources of atmospheric pollution is vehicle exhaust, and bicycle is the one which release zero flue gas. I still remember the public service ads that describe the bicycle as a transportation with panorama sunroof, natural wind, low parking fee and more importantly, zero release. As a result, taking the good living habit both for oneself and environment is a trend that influence each individual. Thus, I don’t think there is anything much healthier and environmental-friendly than taking the bicycle for transportation or exercise.

As to the recycling products, I take the conservative attitude. Waste goods are always with some harmful materials such as batteries, plastics and poisonous metal. The Apple Inc., which is the top developer in environmental protection material, didn’t stop using mercury, lead and arsenic in their display screen until they set up the project of Green Chemistry Advisory Board in 2013, let alone those companies and factories which still know nothing about the hazardous substance. Clearly, professional events suit those professionals. We ordinary beings should stay away from those we cannot handle safely.

Some may claim that organic food largely reduce negative influences to the soil, water and air because of the natural planting environment and non-pesticide cultivation, which they are willing to pay for. However, the fact is far from their belief. According to the recent report from Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, the amount of heavy metal in the soil of organic spinach is nearly 10% less than that of inorganic spinach. However, the organic spinach is double than inorganic spinach in selling price. Under this circumstance, buying organic food is not a good deal.

To conclude, in view of all those situations I have stated above, low-carbon traveling is the best choice.

(360words)