2017年7月托福寫作真題回憶及范文賞析(一)

　　綜合

　　閱讀介紹了美國將出臺一個限制非本土動物進(jìn)口及貿(mào)易的法律，列舉了美國人反對該法律 的三大原因：

　　1. 寵物主人擔(dān)心自家外來寵物會因為該法律被強(qiáng)行帶走;

　　2. 該法律實施成本過高;

　　3. 全國一刀切是不對的。

　　聽力： 反對閱讀觀點：

　　1. 不會波及寵物主人，因為該法律只針對進(jìn)口及動物貿(mào)易，而已經(jīng)擁有的不作處理。;

　　2. 成本高是值得的，因為這些動物一旦造成生態(tài)破壞，需要花費更大成本去處理;如 Burmese phyton( 一種來自亞洲的蛇，可以長達(dá)5 米) 在佛羅里達(dá)州泛濫，花了很多錢才驅(qū) 除。

　　3. 無法長久生存的、看似無害的外來動物一旦外逃也是很危險的。如Brazilian rabbits ， 它們將一種病毒傳染給當(dāng)?shù)赝米樱瑢?dǎo)致當(dāng)?shù)?9% 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)

　　獨立

　　個人如果想要為環(huán)境保護(hù)做貢獻(xiàn)，以下那種方式最好：

　　1.騎自行車或走路出行

　　2.回收利用廢舊物品

　　3.購買當(dāng)?shù)赜袡C(jī)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)