官方网站：

托福写作满分范文示例

满分托福作文范文示例：However, success depends on many conditions, such as time, hard work and luck. The list goes on and on. As one of the books by Bryan Tracy says, the success consists of 21 secrets. No matter what era one is in, one has to tries one’s best to work at right time at right place with a little luck in order to succeed. If one lives today but does take action,one will end up no where certainly.

中文翻译：但是，成功取决于很多因素，比如是否有时间，是否愿意努力工作，运气是否足够好。这个单子，其实还可以很长很长。就像Bryan Tracy一本书里所说的，成功其实是包含了21个组成部分的。不管在哪一个时代，每一个人要想成功，都必须是在一个正确的时间，正确的地点，外加一点点运气，同时再加上百倍的努力才能成功。因此一个人住在今天这个不利的时代，哪怕付出全部努力，那么他将注定一事无成。

一般托福作文范文：However, There are many factors contributed to success, such as time, work hard, and luck. This list could be very long. Just as a book writed by by Bryan Tracy says that the success involves 21 pieces. If one want to make success, no matter what time it is, they must try their best at the right time, at the right position, but also with a little luck. If a person live in this society, he could not succeed without trying one’s best.

鉴于今天的文章句式差别极小，因此今天主要分析亮点表达方法。其实如果仅比较优秀范例和平庸范例的用词的话，各位考友会发现差别不大。

如果仅说亮点词的话，优秀范例这些表达方法不错：condition，goes on and on， secret， but does take action， end up no where。

condition这个单词超简单，绝对是无人不知的单词。但是在此处，没有用到本意“环境”的意思，而是引申出“条件，因素”这层含义。相比起平庸范例的factor，就显得factor没有文采了!

再接下来的goes on and on，其实直译过来，就是“走好远好远”，这里也是引申出来，用来表示“很长”的意思。

第三个就是secret。本身是“秘密”的意思，但是在这里表达“组成因素”，但是同时，成功的特性在于，没成功之前，谁都不知道这些因素什么样子，换句话说，大多阐述自己如何成功的都是事后诸葛，都是恰巧走对了路，仅此而已。因此，从这个层面上来说，因为，这些因素在达成之前，谁都不知道是什么样子，因此，也可以被看做一层“迷”。因此，这里的这个secret，恰好表示出这层含义!虽然简单，但是精妙啊!

第四个的does take action，强调句式，显示出自己语法的丰富性，仅此而已，这种皮毛功夫，在托福考试里只能算是下脚料了。

至于最后的no where，绝对用的地道!表示“完全不可能”的意思，也就是我们常用的impossible!纯正的地道表达!一用出来，绝对令ETS批卷老师刮目相看!

官方网站：

 

第二篇：20xx年托福写作满分6篇范文分享

20xx年托福写作满分6篇范文分享~~~~

1、看整篇结构，要看一看这些作文的结构是怎么展开的。要仔细的读一下，这些作文每一段的写作目的，到底是支持还是反对，以及哪几段支持，哪几段反对。

2、看段落结构，要仔细分析在一段之中，每一句话所起到的作用。到底是主题句，

还是例证。

3、看句型多样性，要仔细想想这些作文每一句话说话的分寸。

4、比对自己的写法。看每一句话的时候，脑中都要思考，这句话中文是什么意思，如果是我自己来写，我会怎么写！并且在下一篇自己的作文中替换为这些用法。

5、用词多样性和准确性。

6、如果有需要的话，再背一下是最好的了，没有输入就没有输出咯！

2011-8-2 Independent Writing

Does modern technology help students learn more information and

learn it more quickly?

Marvelous as it looks at first sight, modern technology does not help students learn information at a greater speed and with higher efficiency in most cases; or it could work towards the opposite direction which led students to lose their initiative to

learn and explore.

First of all, one property of modern technology is latently harmful to any learning mind – it distracts. One thing we feel about when we are searching for information online is that the internet, as an outstanding example of modern technology and even regarded as the innovator of education, provides us with not only relevant results to make use of, but also external links to click. More than once I turned on my computer to check school library for resources, but ended up watching Youtube 1

videos. In this case, computer as a representative of modern technology plays a negative role in learning information. We do acquire more information with the convenient tool, yet most of them are irrelevant and in the end procrastinating

would lower our learning.

Also, students would easily become disoriented in the huge sea of information. Although modern technology could equip us with easy access to information, the huge amount of resources would actually leave us discombobulated. Therefore, it is only we possess information more quickly rather than we learn it more quickly. An illustrating example is my experience with a HK digital library which stores almost all the books I desire. At first I enjoyed downloading them from the database, however, one month later I ended up with hundreds of books stored in

my hardware yet none of them finished or ever clicked.

Furthermore, modern technology gives students an illusion that information and real knowledge is easy to learn – just by clicking mouse or watching videos. But in fact this forms only the first step towards useful information and effective learning, as learning of any kind requires full concentration and interactive thinking, which

are almost absent in the pocess of popular e-learning experience.

To summarize, modern technology does not help students learn more information and learn it more quickly, though it does make access to information and resources much more easily. The popular e-learning still lacks the concentration, depth, and interaction that are the hallmark of traditional ways of educating and learning.

2011-8-10

TPO Independent writing：我们生活的时代比父辈们年轻时生活的时代更好还

是更坏？

It seems that people always have a desire to compare: am I prettier than others? Are we living in a better age? Or, as the question goes, is our life easier and more enjoyable than it was several decades ago? I would say no, as I have witnessed the 2

struggle and paradox of our generation.

First of all, we are now living in an age of revolution with no previous human experience that could be referred to. Living in such a fast-changing world would not be easy and comfortable at all; with everything keeps changing, everyone has to move fast in order to catch up with the majority. However, people were much more stable and care-free when our grandparents were children; they did not have to learn a second language in order to get a better job, or read a lot in order to get informed. Yet in our age, these are supposed to be the responsibility of young

people.

Another discomfort of our age is that we are experiencing interpersonal alienation. With the development of communication technology, people in fact become alienated with friends and relatives since they could be so easily accessed via phone or email. Too often we feel that few of our friends are true friends, without the traditional feeling of mutual affection which could only be created by longtime apart. But several decades ago, people treasured their friends and maintained relatively close interpersonal relations, which is much more enjoyable than the

estrangements we are experiencing.

The last factor that has made our age so uncomfortable is the abusive use of technology. Although it brings much convenience, it essentially changes human – we are no longer the master of tools, but instead the slaves of devices. We rush to metro station in order to catch an early train, sit in front of radioactive computers all day long in order to get our work done, and stay in air-conditioned rooms all summer without experiencing the natural changes outside thick cement walls. Several decades ago, people could still live closer to nature and make rational use of modern technology, which to me is the essence of human living experience.

However, the comparison between different times is itself ridiculous. The criteria could not be easily determined, and opinions are highly personal. Anyway, we have a longer life span, more advanced medical facilities, and easier traffic than our grandparent when they were children, and we should treasure the present experience. Imagination of the past might only be nostalgia – if I ask my 3

grandparents the same question, they might as well say that our life is much better than the past generations. Who knows? As long as the world is still peaceful, life at

any time would not become too difficult to handle.

2011/8/14

Independent writing:

Most advertisements make products much better than they really are.

I strongly agree to the statement that most advertisements makes the products presented much better than they really are, and points below supports my idea.

An essential reason concerns the nature of advertising – advertisers, in most cases, would only make products seem better than they really are, not the other way around. Since the ultimate aim of advertising is to persuade people into buying something, and people would natually be attracted by something that is desirable

rather than repellent, advertisements are certainly made to display a more attractive image of products. Therefore, customers would first be graviated towards the virtual product that is somewhat dishonestly pictured by advertisers, then desire to own it, and eventually purchase it. In this way, the desire of consumers is satisfied, the purpose of production achieved, and the advertising

process completed.

But the norm that a “good” product is advertised as a “better” one is often challenged or even reversed – that is, unscrupulous businessmen make use of advertising to sell inferior products, which raises a moral question. For example, my mother was once attracted by a commercial of a encyclopedia which was claimed to be the one and only complete version of several ancient Chinese documents. She rushed to the shop and bought this “limited version” at a eye-popping price, and regarded it as one of the most precious things in our house. However, a few months later she found the same version was sold in bulk at another shop at an unbelievably low price, which annoyed her for quite a long time.

We can learn from the experience that we should not always trust the

4

advertisements that are apparently exaggerating products, and keep alert in the

swarm of television commercials.

However, the notion that “advertisement always make us disappointed” sometimes results from consumers’ unrealistic expectation of products. Advertising easily makes people to imagine “perfect” products which are not realistic at all, but consumers would rather keep this unreasonable hope. Then they would be inevitably disappointed by the actual products which cannot be so perfect, and attribute the cause to advertising. But it is actually the unrealistic expectation that eclipses any product, because a perfect image is absolutely subjective and could

not even be realized. For example, I once signed up for a group tour

toLantaoIslandinHong Kong, being attracted by the beautiful landscape pictures posted in the advertisements. But later on in the journey I was disappointed because actual scenery was never as attractive as what I had expected to see. Therefore, an unrealistic expectation is to be avoided in making any buying

decision.

In conclusion, advertisements do make products seem much better than they really are, as a result of commercial propaganda and our unrealistic hope imposed on products. A better solution would be that both consumers andsellers keep a more realistic point of view, and avoid unreasonable selling or buying behavior.

2011/8/15

Independent writing: Does technology make children less creative than

in the past?

Are our kids becoming lazier and less creative, less imaginable than before as a consequence of highly advanced technology? My answer is no, and just the opposite, technology has apparently assisted our kids to become more creative.

First and foremost, technology has provided children with easy access to scientific and liberal art resources which is their best source of inspiration. For example, children could now easily gain access to academic databases through iPad screen, 5

read classical works on Kindle, or watch historic documents on Internet. These great works are essentially helpful to arousing their curiosity and prepares them with key knowledge necessary for any creation. However, these wonderful equipments and facilities are never as handy in the past, when kids could only reach limited resources in public libraries or schools. In this sense, technology has

provided the possibility for children to be more creative.

Second, technology has equipped children with professional apparatus which could finally realize their imagination. This takes form particularly as computer softwares and applications, such as Photoshop for creative graphic design, Overture for easily composing a piece of music, 3DMax for building up a virtual world, etc.. All the software were never as handy as they are at present, and this would absolutely

provides our children an effective tool for realizing their creativity.

Third, technology itself is a market place where creative ideas are economically encouraged. Steve Jobs earned millions of dollars a year for his unparallel creation, and Mark Zuckberg gained his reputation for the genius social network. Therefore, technology has provided children the internal motive to develop their creativity.

However, it is undeniable that technology might make children become lazier and

be comfortable with what is already available because everything are so

convenient nowadays and there seems to be no way to improve them. Children lost in pc games or blindly pursuing every single piece of tech apparatus is a relevant example. Thus, it is always necessary to keep children’s mind active in the

marvelous world of technology.

In a nutshell, I still regard children as becoming increasingly creative in technology development, although it might bring minor side effect. As along as we keep a balanced mood on children enjoying the fruit of technology, they are sure to

contribute more to innovation than in the past.

2011-08-20

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The teachers 6

should be paid according to how well the students perform.

Teachers should in part be responsible of the students’ school performance, yet I disagree to the statement that the teachers should be paid according to the

students’ performance on several grounds.

The statement itself underlies a serious mistake – the very purpose of teaching and schooling, and education on a bigger scale, is better performance of all students. Common sense informs me that education, and teachers’ responsibility in particular,

should be intended to building up students’ confidence in exploring and

discovering unknown respects as well as specific skills required to accomplish that. Such standard is often broad and abstract in contrast to the narrowness and rigidity of the criterion – students’ performance. If teachers’ salary is determined by the students’ performance, this hint would destroy the long-term function of schooling and education since the system is short-sightedly targeted at improving

students’ performance.

Another thing to be worried about the statement is that, if actually carried out,

both teachers and students would be cast into the irrational pursuit for

performance thus results in serious problems. For example, a teacher evaluated in this way is immediately forced to make the decision: to push her class toward the best performance or at least better than the worst-performing class, and show preference to students who perform well. Such measures might be incentives for a better grade, but the teacher and the students would lose their original motivation in schooling as performance becomes the one and only purpose. Also, consequent competition among students would place heavy pressure on every student, and the ones who do not perform well would be neglected by the teacher and fall into upset. Considering all the disastrous effect such measure could incur, it is obvious

that teachers should not be paid on the basis of students’ performance.

A more realistic and rational criterion to value teachers’ work (and therefore decide their salary) should include factors such as comprehensive developments of students, teachers’ own capacity to cultivate and educate, and parents’ feedback. Yet my disagreement does not suggest that students’ performance should be 7

abandoned but rather included along with other indispensable factors in evaluating teachers’ work, since school report is still among most parents’ top concerns and students have to use it as anchor when applying for further studies. Also, it is reasonable that teachers who can enhance students’ performance should be paid

better, as the measure would moderately motivate teachers to work hard.

In a nutshell, I object to the idea that the teachers should be paid on the basis of the students’ performance, but should instead be evaluated on a medley of comprehensive quatatives which agrees with the purpose of education and schooling as well as encourages their effort toward more satisfying learning

experience.

2011-8-8

Integrated Writing

The lecturer states that, although the commonly accepted three theories of birds’ navigation sounds convincing, it suffers from several flaws on various grounds, as

is presented below.

The first problem with the navigation theory presented in the text is the lack of substantial evidence. As is stated in the lecture, many birds could still navigate at night; therefore they could not navigate by using the sun as compass, since there is no sunlight at night for their reference. And stars do not help either, as there is only one bird species that is known to navigate by using stars. Therefore the sun

and the star could not be birds’ compasses.

The second flaw concerns birds’ ability to recognize topographical cues. They can remember a certain journey, but only after their previous travels via the same route. The phenomenon that birds that get lost could easily find their way home serves as a crucial example. On the contrary, the theory presented in the test is questionable.

Furthermore, although birds can sense the earth’s magnetic field, the text ignores a crucial fact that birds could only distinguish north and south. What they could not 8

perform is to find an indefinite destination hidden in complex landscape, which even troubles modern geographical technology, by their simple censoring system. Therefore, birds’ ability to sense magnetic field could not be the explanation for

their navigation ability.

9