托福口语叙述需要避免的5个误区解读

发布者:零点巡夜 时间:2022-11-15 12:04

托福口语叙述需要避免的5个误区解读, 这些错误还请引起重视。今天小编给大家带来了托福口语叙述需要避免的5个误区解读,希望能够帮助到大家,下面小编就和大家分享,来欣赏一下吧。

托福口语叙述需要避免的5个误区解读 这些错误还请引起重视

1、不能停顿

有些同学以为,要想拿高分,我必须说得特别快,不要有停顿。事实并非如此。

停顿的要义在于不打破句子意思,让听众不需要重组意群才是关键。如果停顿导致听众需要努力才能听懂这就不对了。所以,不是说口语不能停,你可以停,但要停的恰当,不影响表达就可以。

2、说的越多越好

托福口语评分标准三是口语表达。

一篇关于托福的研究报告中,统计了答题字数,发现独立口语满分考生最多使用过200词,在45秒内答完,而使用词汇最少的满分同学回答只有短短71词,45秒钟说好71个词就可以拿口语满分。如此看来,一味追求答题字数是不对的。

要准备”好“的内容,而非”长“的内容。

3、标新立异

ETS考官在考试结束后要连续评分4个小时,听一遍立马给分,反复听无数考生的答案,如果要追求标新立异,那你可就走偏了。

有些不负责任的老师要求考生标新立异,以求脱颖而出给考官留下印象,实际上托福口语评分标准要求给出了非常清楚的解释:口语表达明白,听懂了就可以。

而且很多考生在考场上短短15秒思考时间内根本没有好的想法,还要逼迫自己,想不出来,答题只回断断续续话不成篇,反而分数更低。

4、错误展开

托福口语评分标准一是观点的展开与发展。很多同学没有做过逻辑训练,强行展开,造成了考官的疑惑不解。

比如,有个问题是:“你喜欢在快餐店吃饭还是餐厅吃饭?为什么?”同学回答说:“去快餐店好,因为去了点薯条,周围还有三家店”。这种回答问题出现在没有逻辑。为什么要点薯条?考生没有提真正原因,没有抓住重点。

5、大量使用难词

托福口语评分标准第二条是语言使用。

在口语中使用一些高难词(所谓的“Fancy words”),被一些考生认为是高分必杀技。实际上在对托福高分回答的分析中,85%的口语高分考生使用了常见的1000个词汇,从这里可以看出高分同学使用的词汇并非高难词汇。一味追求高难词的做法走偏了。

托福口语话题科技素材整理

Some people believe that modern technology has made our lives simpler. Others believethat modern technology has made our lives more complicated. What is your opinion?

让我们首先一起来阅读这篇On science and good life.

既可以积累素材,也可以激发灵感:

There is probably no limit to what science can do in the way of increasing positive excellence. Health has already been greatly improved; in spite of the lamentations of those who idealize the past, we live longer and have fewer illnesses than any class or nation in the eighteenth century. With a little more application of the knowledge we already possess, we might be much healthier than we are. And future discoveries are likely to accelerate this process enormously.

科学在增加美好的积极因素方面所能做的事情,很可能是没有止境的。卫生条件已经得到极大的改善;不管那些怀旧者如何哀叹,与十八世纪任何阶级和民族相比,我们毕竟延长了寿命并减少了疾病。只要把我们已有的知识稍加广泛地应用,我们就会比现在更加健康。未来的发现很可能会极大地加快这方面的进程。

So far, it has been physical science that has had most effect upon our lives, but in the future physiology and psychology are likely to be far more potent. When we have discovered how character depends upon physiological conditions, we shall be able, if we choose, to produce far more of the type of human beings that we admire. Intelligence, artistic capacity, benevolence—all these things no doubt could be increased by science. There seems scarcely any limit to what could be done in the way of producing a good world, if only men would use science wisely.

迄今为止,对我们生活影响最大的当数自然科学,但是在将来,生理学和心理学的影响很可能远在它之上。当我们发现了性格如何依赖于生理条件时,只要我们愿意,我们就能产生出大量我们所称羡的那种人。智力,艺术能力,仁慈---所有这些东西无疑可因科学而增加。只要人们明智地利用科学,在创造美好世界方面所能做的事情,几乎是没有止境的。

There is a certain attitude about the application of science to human life with which I have some sympathy, though I do not, in the last analysis, agree with it. It is the attitude of those who dread what is ‘unnatural.’ Rousseau is, of course, the great protagonist of the view in Europe. In Asia, Lao-Tze has set it forth even more persuasively, and 2400 years sooner. I think there is a mixture of truth and falsehood in the admiration of ‘nature, which it is important to disentangle. To begin with, what is ‘natural?’ Roughly speaking, anything to which the speaker was accustomed in childhood. Lao-Tze objects to roads and carriages and boats, all of which were probably unknown in the village where he was born

关于科学应用到人生这个问题,存在着一种观点,对这种观点,我有些同感,但是最后分析起来,我是不能同意的。 它是那些害怕‘不自然的’东西的人所持有的观点。当然,卢梭是欧洲这一观点的伟大创始人。在亚洲,老子对这一观点的阐述,更是动人心弦,而且要早两千四百年。我认为,他们对于‘自然’的赞美,不过是真理与谬误的混合物,而理清这一问题是很重要的。首先要问,什么东西是‘自然的?’泛泛说来,是说话者幼年时所习惯的东西。老子反对车道和舟车,这恐怕是他所出生的那个村子不知车道和舟车为何物的缘故。

Rousseau has got used to these things, and does not regard them as against nature. But he would no doubt have thundered against railways if he had lived to see them. Clothes and cooking are too ancient to be denounced by most of the apostles of nature, though they all object to new fashions in either. Birth control is thought wicked by people who tolerate celibacy, because the former is a new violation of nature and the latter an ancient one. In these ways those who preach ‘nature’ are inconsistent, and one is tempted to regard them as mere conservatives.

卢梭对这些东西习以为常,所以并不认为它们是违反自然的。但是,假如他在有生之年看见铁路,他无疑会大加指责。服装和烹饪由来已久,大多数提倡自然的人都不提出异议,虽然它们一致反对花样翻新。节育被当成犯罪,而独身则被宽容,因为前者是违反自然的新事物,而后者则古已有之。在所有这些方面,那些提倡‘自然’的人都是自相矛盾的,这只能使人把它们看成是守旧之士。

Nevertheless, there is something to be said in their favor. Take for instance vitamins, the discovery of which has produced a revulsion in favor of ‘natural’ foods. It seems, however, that vitamins can be supplied by cod-liver oil and electric light, which are certainly not part of the ‘natural’ diet of a human being. This case illustrates that, in the absence of knowledge, unexpected harm may be done by a new departure from nature, but when the harm has come to be understood it can usually be remedied by some new artificiality. As regards our physical environment and our physical means of gratifying our desires, I do not think the doctrine of ‘nature’ justifies anything beyond a certain experimental caution in the adoption of new expedients. Clothes, for instance, are contrary to nature, and need to be supplemented by another unnatural practice, namely washing, if they are not to bring disease. But the two practices together make a man healthier than the savage who eschews both.

然而,他们并非一无是处。例如,维生素的发现使人们复而赞成‘自然的’食物。不过,维生素似乎也可由鱼肝油和电光提供,此二者无疑不是人类‘自然的’食物。这个例子表明,如果缺少知识,一种违反自然的新做法也许会带来意想不到的危害,但是当那危害被认识到时,往往可以用某种新的人造物去补救。就我们的自然环境和满足我们欲望的物质手段而言,我认为,有关‘自然’的这套理论,除了证明在采取某种新的做法时应谨慎外,并不能证明别的什么。例如,衣服是违反自然的,如果不想让衣服引起疾病,就需要增加另一种不自然的行为,即洗涤。但是,穿衣与洗涤加在一起却可使人比与此二者无缘的野蛮人要健康。

托福口语话题科技素材

Some people believe that modern technology has made our lives simpler. Others believethat modern technology has made our lives more complicated. What is your opinion?

让我们首先一起来阅读这篇On science and good life.

既可以积累素材,也可以激发灵感:

There is probably no limit to what science can do in the way of increasing positive excellence. Health has already been greatly improved; in spite of the lamentations of those who idealize the past, we live longer and have fewer illnesses than any class or nation in the eighteenth century. With a little more application of the knowledge we already possess, we might be much healthier than we are. And future discoveries are likely to accelerate this process enormously.

科学在增加美好的积极因素方面所能做的事情,很可能是没有止境的。卫生条件已经得到极大的改善;不管那些怀旧者如何哀叹,与十八世纪任何阶级和民族相比,我们毕竟延长了寿命并减少了疾病。只要把我们已有的知识稍加广泛地应用,我们就会比现在更加健康。未来的发现很可能会极大地加快这方面的进程。

So far, it has been physical science that has had most effect upon our lives, but in the future physiology and psychology are likely to be far more potent. When we have discovered how character depends upon physiological conditions, we shall be able, if we choose, to produce far more of the type of human beings that we admire. Intelligence, artistic capacity, benevolence—all these things no doubt could be increased by science. There seems scarcely any limit to what could be done in the way of producing a good world, if only men would use science wisely.

迄今为止,对我们生活影响最大的当数自然科学,但是在将来,生理学和心理学的影响很可能远在它之上。当我们发现了性格如何依赖于生理条件时,只要我们愿意,我们就能产生出大量我们所称羡的那种人。智力,艺术能力,仁慈---所有这些东西无疑可因科学而增加。只要人们明智地利用科学,在创造美好世界方面所能做的事情,几乎是没有止境的。

There is a certain attitude about the application of science to human life with which I have some sympathy, though I do not, in the last analysis, agree with it. It is the attitude of those who dread what is ‘unnatural.’ Rousseau is, of course, the great protagonist of the view in Europe. In Asia, Lao-Tze has set it forth even more persuasively, and 2400 years sooner. I think there is a mixture of truth and falsehood in the admiration of ‘nature, which it is important to disentangle. To begin with, what is ‘natural?’ Roughly speaking, anything to which the speaker was accustomed in childhood. Lao-Tze objects to roads and carriages and boats, all of which were probably unknown in the village where he was born

关于科学应用到人生这个问题,存在着一种观点,对这种观点,我有些同感,但是最后分析起来,我是不能同意的。 它是那些害怕‘不自然的’东西的人所持有的观点。当然,卢梭是欧洲这一观点的伟大创始人。在亚洲,老子对这一观点的阐述,更是动人心弦,而且要早两千四百年。我认为,他们对于‘自然’的赞美,不过是真理与谬误的混合物,而理清这一问题是很重要的。首先要问,什么东西是‘自然的?’泛泛说来,是说话者幼年时所习惯的东西。老子反对车道和舟车,这恐怕是他所出生的那个村子不知车道和舟车为何物的缘故。

Rousseau has got used to these things, and does not regard them as against nature. But he would no doubt have thundered against railways if he had lived to see them. Clothes and cooking are too ancient to be denounced by most of the apostles of nature, though they all object to new fashions in either. Birth control is thought wicked by people who tolerate celibacy, because the former is a new violation of nature and the latter an ancient one. In these ways those who preach ‘nature’ are inconsistent, and one is tempted to regard them as mere conservatives.

卢梭对这些东西习以为常,所以并不认为它们是违反自然的。但是,假如他在有生之年看见铁路,他无疑会大加指责。服装和烹饪由来已久,大多数提倡自然的人都不提出异议,虽然它们一致反对花样翻新。节育被当成犯罪,而独身则被宽容,因为前者是违反自然的新事物,而后者则古已有之。在所有这些方面,那些提倡‘自然’的人都是自相矛盾的,这只能使人把它们看成是守旧之士。

Nevertheless, there is something to be said in their favor. Take for instance vitamins, the discovery of which has produced a revulsion in favor of ‘natural’ foods. It seems, however, that vitamins can be supplied by cod-liver oil and electric light, which are certainly not part of the ‘natural’ diet of a human being. This case illustrates that, in the absence of knowledge, unexpected harm may be done by a new departure from nature, but when the harm has come to be understood it can usually be remedied by some new artificiality. As regards our physical environment and our physical means of gratifying our desires, I do not think the doctrine of ‘nature’ justifies anything beyond a certain experimental caution in the adoption of new expedients. Clothes, for instance, are contrary to nature, and need to be supplemented by another unnatural practice, namely washing, if they are not to bring disease. But the two practices together make a man healthier than the savage who eschews both.

然而,他们并非一无是处。例如,维生素的发现使人们复而赞成‘自然的’食物。不过,维生素似乎也可由鱼肝油和电光提供,此二者无疑不是人类‘自然的’食物。这个例子表明,如果缺少知识,一种违反自然的新做法也许会带来意想不到的危害,但是当那危害被认识到时,往往可以用某种新的人造物去补救。就我们的自然环境和满足我们欲望的物质手段而言,我认为,有关‘自然’的这套理论,除了证明在采取某种新的做法时应谨慎外,并不能证明别的什么。例如,衣服是违反自然的,如果不想让衣服引起疾病,就需要增加另一种不自然的行为,即洗涤。但是,穿衣与洗涤加在一起却可使人比与此二者无缘的野蛮人要健康。

Copyright © 2022-2023 领地网 www.lingd.cn 版权所有 蜀ICP备09043158号-4

声明:本网站尊重并保护知识产权,根据《信息网络传播权保护条例》,如果我们转载的作品侵犯了您的权利,请在一个月内通知我们,我们会及时删除。

返回顶部