独家解密！新托福写作官方考情

longreAndy

独家解密！新托福写作官方考情

朗阁海外考试研究中心

朗阁（广州）培训中心

You have 20 minutes to plan and write your response. Your response will be judged on the basis of the quality of your writing and on how well your response presents the points in the lecture and their relationship to the reading passage. Typically, an effective response will be 150 to 225 words.

u           官方例题的指令中明确指出：对考生回答的评判基于写作本身的质量，对听力讲座中要点的陈述以及对这些要点与阅读文章内容之间的联系的表述。实际上，对综合写作大致的评分标准也就包含在其中了：要有好的语言表达和组织能力（即写作本身的质量），要能正确找到阅读和听力语段中的各个要点（即之前所说的三个点）及相互关系。

Integrated Writing Scoring Rubric

Here is the official Scoring Guide used by raters when they read the Integrated Writing Task.

Score
Task Description

                                                          A response at this level successfully selects the important information from the lecture and coherently and accurately presents this information in relation to the relevant information presented in the reading. The response is well organized, and occasional language errors that are present do not result in inaccurate or imprecise presentation of content or connections.

◆考官的初步给分大致划分为五个等级：从0分开始，每上升一个等级则多1分，最高的等级是5分。就5分的评分标准来看，要达到这个水平首先需要成功筛选出听力讲座中的重要信息。然后就这些信息与阅读文章中的相关联系作出条理清楚、意义明确的表述。考生回答的组织性要强，其中偶尔出现的语言错误并不会导致内容和衔接上的不准确。这里不难看出，基于新托福机考的特征，评分标准相对人性化。由于时间的紧迫，考生大多一次性完成作答，少有时间修改，因此在键盘输入时所导致的一些拼写或其他小错误，只要不影响整体表述和回答的完整性、连贯性，也是可以得到好的成绩的。

（题目中阅读和听力文章的点对点图示见附录）

Score 5 Response

The lecturer talks about research conducted by a firm that used the group system to handle their work. He says that the theory stated in the passage was very different and somewhat inaccurate when compared to what happened for real.

First, some members got free rides. That is, some didn’t work hard but gotrecognition for the success nontheless. This also indicates that people who worked hard was not given recognition they should have got. In other words, they weren’t given the oppotunity to “shine.” This derectly contradicts what the passage indicates.

Second, groups were slow in progress. The passage says that groups are nore responsive than individuals because of the number of people involved and their aggregated resources. However, the speaker talks about how the firm found out that groups were slower than individuals in dicision making. Groups needed more time for meetings, which are neccesary procceedures in decision making. This was another part where experience contradicted theory.

Third, influential people might emerge, and lead the group towards glory or failure. If the influent people are going in the right direction there would be no problem. But in cases where they go in the wrong direction, there is nobody that has enough influence to counter the decision made. In other words, the group might turn into a dictatorship, with the influential party as the leader, and might be less flexible in thinking. They might become one-sided, and thus fail to succeed.

Rater’s Comments

There are several errors of spelling, word formation, and subject-verb agreement in this response; however, most of these errors seem to be the result of typing errors common to first drafts. This writer does an excellent job of presenting the lecturer’s points that contradict the arguments made in reading passage. The writer is very specific and has organized his points so that they are parallel with one another: in each of the supporting paragraphs, the lecturer’s observation of what really happened is given first, then explicitly connected to a theoretical point from the reading. The final paragraph contains one noticeable error (“influent”), which is then used correctly two sentences later (“influential”). Overall, this is a successful response and earns a score of 5.

朗阁海外考试研究中心专家终极解读:

u               结合上面5分的评分标准和范文后面考官的评论，不难看出这篇范文得到高分的几点原因：1. 考生在表述讲座者与阅读文章内容相矛盾的观点时，内容具体，条理清楚，三点内容相互比较，点点到位。2. 每一个支持段落中，将讲座者观察到的实际情况先总结出来，明确听力内容中的要点，再与阅读文章中相应的理论点联系，一一反驳，行文十分流畅，语言表达也相当清晰。3. 虽然范文中有一些较明显的错误：拼写错误如“nontheless”(nonetheless), “opportunity”(opportunity), “derectly”(directly), “nore”(more), “dicision”(decision), “procceedures”(procedures)；主谓一致错误如第二段“was”的主语是“people”，所以应改为“were”；亦或是“gotrecognition”(got recognition)这样没有空格的情况。但就像最后一段的这个拼写错误“influent”，在其前后的两个句子中考生使用的都是正确的“influential”，说明这个错误和之前大部分的错误一样，都只是初稿时造成的普遍的输入错误，并不影响读者和考官的阅读，也不会影响到整篇文章的完整性。由此可见，该范文完全符合上述评分标准中的描述，真正做到了瑕不掩瑜。而考官对综合写作的评分重点还是在于对听力和阅读内容的把握和基本的概括表达能力。

朗阁海外考试研究中心特别提示考生，综合写作中有效地提炼出听力阅读中相关联的信息并正确且条理清晰地加以表述是关键。虽然允许一些小错误的存在，但要有良好的语言基础才能做到以上几点。所以平时除了听阅写齐步走地提高练习外，对基本语法和语言表达能力的训练仍不可忽视。

附录

Reading passage	Lecture script	Key points
In many organizations, perhaps the best way to approach certain new projects is to assemble a group of people into a team. Having a team of people attack a project offers several advantages.	Now I want to tell you about what one company found when it decided that it would turn over some of its new projects to teams of people, and make the team responsible for planning the projects and getting the work done. After about six months, the company took a look at how well the teams performed.	Points made in the lecture cast doubts over points made in the reading.
First of all, a group of people has a wider range of knowledge，expertise, and skills than any single individual is likely to possess. Also, because of the numbers of people involved and the greater resources they possess, a group can work more quickly in response to the task assigned to it and can come up with highly creative solutions to problems and issues. Sometimes these creative solutions come about because a group is more likely to make risky decisions that an individual might not undertake. This is because the group spreads responsibility for a decision to all the members and thus no single individual can be held accountable if the decision turns out to be wrong.	On virtually every team, some members got almost a "free ride"... they didn't contribute much at all, but if their team did a good job, they nevertheless benefited from the recognition the team got. And what about group members who worked especially well and who provided a lot of insight on problems and issues? Well... the recognition for a job well done went to the group as a whole, no names were named. So it won't surprise you to learn that when the real contributors were asked how they felt about the group process, their attitude was just the opposite of what the reading predicts.	Some members of a group don't work as much as others, but the rewards for success are shared equally, frustrating the true contributors. (This undermines the reading's claim that being part of a team is a rewarding experience, with individuals getting a chance to "shine.")
Taking part in a group process can be very rewarding for members of the team. Team members who have a voice in making a decision will no doubt feel better about carrying out the work that is entailed by the decision than they might doing work that is imposed on them by others.	Another finding was that some projects just didn't move very quickly. Why? Because it took so long to reach consensus... it took many, many meetings to build the agreement among group members about how they would move the project along.	Team work can progress very slowly, due to the time it takes to reach consensus. (This challenges the reading's claim that team work proceeds quickly due to the wider range of resources contributed by the individual members.)
Also, the individual team member has a much better chance to “shine”, to get his or her contributions and ideas not only recognized but recognized as highly significant, because a team’s overall results can be more far-reaching and have greater impact than what might have otherwise been possible for the person to accomplish or contribute working alone.	On the other hand, there were other instances where one or two people managed to become very influential over what their group did. Sometimes when those influences said "That will never work" about an idea the group was developing, the idea was quickly dropped instead of being further discussed. And then there was another occasion when a couple influencers convinced the group that a plan of theirs was "highly creative." And even though some members tried to warn the rest of the group that the project was moving in directions that might not work, they were basically ignored by other group members. Can you guess the ending to this story? When the project failed, the blame was placed on all the members of the group.	One or two members can dominate the others, pushing bad decisions or ignoring good suggestions (and/or resulting, in blame being distributed to the rest of the group). (This is contrary to the claim in the passage that team work is good because all the members have a voice. It also shows the drawback of a group's willingness to take risks, touted as a good thing in the reading.)