倫倫的小blog

 

前言：

這篇要討論的主題是integrated writing，

有涵蓋reading, lecture, 最後是writing.

首先，請還不熟習流程的朋友先看這邊介紹--TOEFL Intro(7)--writing考試內容與介面

 

討論的順序分別為：

reading part

listening part

遊戲規則--ETS如何評分

模板如何用

範例

 

一開始你可能會覺得規則、小技巧很多，但是你實際練習5次以後，

就會發現不難了，那我們就開始吧！

 

 

Reading part

在reading中你有3分鐘來讀，是滿足夠的。

基本上，不是叫你全文讀完，而是叫你利用這些時間，把重點挑出來。

 

Integrated writing 中的 reading 形式是很固定的，

reading的結構，如下，

0. General Introduction

1. reason 1
  a. detail
  b. detail

2. reason 2
  a. detail
  b. detail
  c. detail

3. reason 3
  a. detail

 

真實的考試中就是這樣子的，第一段一定是general introduction，

其後各段各說一個reason，而且各段第一句就會很清楚的告訴你reason是什麼，

然後就是關於reason的detail。而reason的數量一定是三個。

 

我們在reading的工作，不會很複雜，

在general introduction段落找出這篇文章討論的「主題」

然後，分別找出三個「reason」，

這樣對於模板來說，已經完成100%的收集資料工作了。

 

但是，xination要特別提出一點，

請不要懶惰跳過detail的部份，

請check detail 裡面有沒有專有名詞、地名、例子等等，

比方說什麼奇怪的樹名、種族名，

在等一下的lecture部份，speaker可能會談論到這些specialized term,

所以你至少要看一下，看看這些specialized term是怎麼發音的。

不然，在lecture中可能會有傻掉的風險。

不過你也不太需要抄這些specialized term，

因為在你寫作的時候，是可以看得到reading的。

 

模擬的note

ps. 有一次考試很驚險，我誤解的reading的意思，那是一題關於chimpanzee的故事，我看了第一段的介紹以為是要比較到底使用石器來當作工具是猩猩很久前就會的技能，還是最近才學會的。記得第一個reading中第一個論點是石頭的形狀與重量，第二個論點是石頭上含有的化學物質來自古代特殊的植物，第三個論點是ivory coast古代還沒有人居住。....奇怪，我搞不太懂這跟古代猩猩與現代猩猩有什麼關係。後來聽到lecture時，才恍然大悟，原來是在討論這些石器是猩猩的工具還是古代人的工具。...真是好險，雖然寫的不順手但還是有完成了～～呼

 

 

 

 

 

Listening part

Integrated writing 的 lecture 其形式也是相當的固定。

一開使speaker會說出他文章的態度，

雖然OG上說speaker可能會supports or disagrees 於reading.

但實際上 speaker只會disagrees，一定都是持反對的態度。

 

態度表明後，speaker會針對reading中的reason一個一個地反駁，

一般都是按照順序說下來的，就是reason 1、reason 2、 reason 3

各段會提出一個main idea，然後還有detail 來反駁 reading中的reason.

 

 

在聽的時候，

xination的觀點是理解與寫筆記是同等重要的，

找到 main idea是其中最重要的工作，

不過，不幸無法理解的時候，不要放棄，請不停的抄下聽到的字，

這樣至少你還可以硬掰。

 

模擬的note

 

聽完後，我們開始整理note，並review整個論點
 

首先把lecture中各段的main idea框起來

接著出裡detail的部份，把你覺得可以用的資料勾起來，

也就是那些你聽得清楚的，有把握的，然後我們就以動手打字了。

 

---

遊戲規則--ETS如何評分

 

整合寫作中，最重要的的就是：

找出lecture中的 important information，

同時正確的表達這些important information

與在reading中所提的的重點的關係。

用更簡單的話說，精確地找出reading與lecture的重點，

並把他們match良好。

 

Score 5

 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.

如果你將reading與lecture關聯性，match的很好，

也就是很清楚的寫出speaker反對文章的理由。你就可以得到高分。

 

如果你有一點偶然的文法、單字錯誤，

不要緊，ETS會自動忽視的，前提是這些錯誤並不影響語意。

 

Score 4

A response at this level is generally good in selecting the important information from the lecture and in coherently and accurately presenting this information in relation to the relevant information in the reading, but it may have minor omission, inaccuracy, vagueness, or imprecision of some content from the lecture or in connection to points made in the reading. A response is also scored at this level if it has more frequent or noticeable minor language errors, as long as such usage and grammatical structures do not result in anything more than an occasional lapse of clarity or in the connection of ideas.

若你在關聯性中有點錯誤，你的等級馬上就會被降一級了。

這些錯誤包括，寫的不清楚、或是有部份不正確。

 

如果你有些字，一直拼錯，ETS就不認為這是偶發的，

他就會扣你分數。

 

 

---

 

接下來，我們來看模板

 

INTEGRATED WRITING FORMAT

 

The reading passage and the professor both discuss the topic of _______.

However, the speaker discords with the ideas in the reading passage.

He offers several reasons to oppose the article.

(He thinks _____,) offering several reasons to oppose the article.

 

The first reason is that ______. ( the first reason is about _____.)

Although in the article it claims _______, the professor says ______.

Thus, the lecturer believes ________.

(That contradicts what the reading passage indicates.)

 

Second, the speaker refutes the reading by mentioning ______.

Though the article states _______, he argues that ______.

Therefore, the lecturer concludes that________.

 

The third reason is that _______.

While the article indicates _______, the speaker points out _______.

Hence, the professor holds that _______.

 

Finally, the professor in the lecture disagrees with the points in the reading.

He believes that ___________.

 

ps.1 如果你不打灰色的段落，模板有98個字。

ps.2 空行是為了排版方便，實際在寫的時候，要連續，不要空行！

 

 

---

 

模板分段討論：第一段

 

(Introduce)

The reading passage and the professor both discuss the topic of _______.

However, the speaker discords with the ideas in the reading passage.

He offers several reasons to oppose the article.

(He thinks _____,) offering several reasons to oppose the article.

 

 

細節說明：

The reading passage and the professor both discuss the topic of _______.

提醒，of 是介係詞，後面不能加名詞子句...，要用名詞或動名詞

ex. topic of bird, topic of developing

而這格空格你可以直接打reading的title key 進去就好了。

或者你也可以在reading的第一段中找到資訊。

所以，大致上說起來，首段是完全不需要費大腦的。

 

 

(He thinks _____,) offering several reasons to oppose the article.

括號內的句子表示：加此句，文章會更為通順，但也非必要，

但可以達到增加字數的效果。

比方說這邊可以寫，

He thinks XXX isn't a good idea.

He thinks XXX isn't true.

 

範例：

The reading passage and the professor both discuss the bird navigation. However, the professor discords with the ideas in the reading passage. He believes that the three theorems presented in the reading are questionable, offering several reasons to oppose the article.

 

 

---

 

模板分段討論：第二段

 

(First reason)

The first reason is that ______.

Although in the article it claims _______, the professor says ______.

Thus, the lecturer believes ________.

(That contradicts what the reading passage indicates.)

 

我們先來談行文思維，請看個模擬的例子，

如果以中文來表達的話，大概就是下面的樣子：

A  第一個原因是公司的成本會被迫增加。

B   雖然在文章說，這政策不會薪水支出增加。

C   但是教授指出，新政策使人員增加，會需要更多的工作空間，電腦設備。

D   也同時需要更多的員工訓練。

E   因此，教授相信這政策反而會使成本大大的增加。

 

而它的思維是：

A句是本段的主題：說明本段要討論什麼

B句是我們要反駁的對象：摘要reading的部份

C,D句是反駁B的內容：提出lecture的部份

E句是下結論，表達B是有誤的：說明reading 與 lecture的關係

 

 

更簡單來說，你可以想成有人誤會你的時候，你的回答，比方說：

   我沒有想要追她。

   雖然我們時常處在一起，也聊得很開心。

   但是，我們比較適合當朋友，因為彼此價值觀差異滿大，要作情侶很困難。

   所以，我必須澄清我沒有在追她。

 

為什麼xination要特別寫行文思維呢，

因為有的人會主張把B句去掉，也就是完全不寫reading的部份，

就只有寫lecture中聽到的內容，

這樣是容易寫啦，但是好嗎？

我覺得還是勤勞一點，把reading的部份也寫進去，這樣會使意思更完整。

不然，你將上面的例子中的B句的拿掉，雖然也是對，但卻減少了完整性。

所以我是建議reading與lecture的部份都寫。

ok，那下面我們就開始 sentence by sentence的討論。

 

 

The first reason is that ______.

這邊的空格填lecture中 main idea就可以了。

比方說你的note是如下這樣的：

1. companies forced increase cost (main idea)

  a.  office space and computers (major detail)

  b. training employees (major detail)

 

成品就是：

The first reason is that companies are forced to increase to cost.

 

 

如果你覺得，要把理由寫這麼詳細，滿困難的。

沒關係，我們可以採用另一種，較不精確，但很省力的的方法。

我會使用 The first reason is about/ related to / associated with ... 這樣的寫法。

比方說，以上述的資料為例，可以寫成 The first reasion is about cost.

接著看下一句

 

 

Although in the article it claims ___a____, the professor says ___b___.

這句的作用是連接reading與listening，並且作比對。

如果你不喜歡這樣的複句，或是覺得還滿難操作，可以將它方解成兩個單句。

比方說：

In the article it claims __a__.

However, the professor says __b__.

 

空格a，可以在reading中找到，我們的要填的是，speaker反駁的目標。

這邊要注意的重點是，不要犯了「牛頭不對馬嘴」的錯誤。

同時也不要把reading的所有的東西都抄上來，儘量改寫成簡單一點。

因為評分的重點不是在於你寫了多少reading的東西，

而是在於lecture的內容，與其內容與reading的關聯。

 

下面是範例：

The first reason is that companies are forced to increase their cost.

Although in the article it claims this policy doesn't raise the total payroll.

professor says ___b___.

 

 

 

空格b，我覺得是integrated writing 裡最重要的部份的。

分數的高低，我想這個部份是佔滿重的，因為它是模板所無法生出來的，

這邊的空格，我們要填 major details，

所以當你在聽的時候，即使聽不懂，

也應該寫下幾個你聽懂的字，事後就還可以用來造句。

 

來看一下範例：

The first reason is that companies are forced to increase their cost.

Although in the article it claims this policy doesn't raise the total payroll,

professor says companies need to offer more office space and computers to the increasing number of employees.

(He also points out that) companies have to spend more money on training their employees.

 

這邊還有個小小技巧，如果你覺得你想講的過長的話，

你可以在造一句，比方說 he also points out that ...

不然，也可以用連接詞and

 

在模板中，你不必將模板中的字都全背起來，，可以使用很多同義詞互換。

同義詞的運用：

(1) professor，可以用 speaker, lecturer, man, he 來代換

(2) mention, point out, indicate, say, talk about, claim

(3) hence, therefore, thus, as a result,

(4) conclude, hold, believe..

 

 

最後是結論段：

Thus, the lecturer believes ______.

這邊，的作用是使立論更清晰，同時有加強的作用，

只要把 the first reason的內容稍微改寫一下，在填入就好了。

所以也不算太費腦力。

ex.Thus, the lecturer believes this policy is going to decrease the profits of companies.

 

 

ps.

另外，可有會有狀況是

The first reason is that ______.

Although in the article it claims _______, the professor says ______.
要是article講的太長了...我們可以用以個小方法。

Thus, the lecturer believes ________.

 

ex.

The first reason is that companies are forced to increase their cost. The professor says companies need to offer more office space and computers to the increasing number of employees. He also points out that companies have to spend more money on training their employees. Thus, the lecturer believes this policy is going to decrease the profits of companies, and that contradicts what the reading passage indicates.

我們直接把although刪掉，然後在結論段填上，that contradicts what the reading passage indicates，這也是一個不錯的方法。

 

 

---

模板分段討論：第三段-第五段

 

 

(Second reason)

Second, the speaker refutes the reading by mentioning ______.

Though the article states _______, he argues that ______.

Therefore, the lecturer concludes that________.

原理跟之前一模一樣，只是換了些字而已。

 

 

(third reason)

The third reason is that _______.

While the article indicates _______, the speaker points _______.

Hence, the professor holds that _______.

原理跟之前一模一樣。

 

 

(Conclusion) <---可有可無的一段，沒寫也不要緊。

Finally, the professor in the lecture disagrees with the points in the reading.

He believes that ___________.

 

 

---

範例

 

    The reading passage and the professor both discuss the topic of the death of Coelophysis dinosaurs. However, he discords with the ideas in the reading passage. He thinks the theorems mentioned in the article aren't completely correct, offering several reasons to oppose the article.

 

    The first reason is about stuck-in-mud theory. Although in articles it claims that there was a deep mud bank near that location, the professor says the dinosaurs' legs were not buried deeper than their head. And these dinosaurs were preserved up-standing. Thus, the speaker believes that stuck-in-mud theory is questionable.

 

    Second, the professor refutes the reading passage by mentioning dinosaurs didn't drink the poisonous water. Though the article says that dinosaurs' bone contained high levels of poison arsenic, the speaker argues the arsenic came after these dinosaurs had died. Therefore, the lecturer concludes that the poison water theorem still has problems.

 

    The third reason is associated with flood. While the article indicates the bones are in good condition, and that may be caused by a flood. The speaker says that the orientation of skeletons show the evidence that a flood had no possibility to do that. He also supposes that a flood came after the death of dinosaurs. Hence, the professor holds that flood is not the reason caused dinosaurs died.

 

Finally, the professor in the lecture disagrees with the ideas in the reading passage. He believes the points of view menetioned in the reading passage is not true.

 

 

---

範例

 

    The reading passage and the professor both discuss the topic of hydrogen cars. However, the speaker discords with the ideas in the reading passage. He thinks the hydrogen cars will be popular in the future, offering several reasons to oppose the article.

 

The First reason is about engines and bodies of cars. Although in article it claims that engines and bodies of cars will have to be redesigned, the professor says that even now major manufacturers have cars on road, requiring no redesigning. And the professor supposes the technology will do more improvement. Therefore, He believes engines and bodies of cars are not the obstacle for popularizing the hydrogen car.

 

Second, the speaker refutes the reading passage by mentioning the storage. Though the article states hydrogen fuel is very dangerous to handle, he argues that hydrogen fuel isn't harder to handle than gasoline. He says that the true problem is that governments aren't willing to build hydrogen fuel station. Hence, the professor concludes the way of storing hydrogen fuel isn't a real problem.

 

The third reason is associated with infrastructure. While the article indicates that it takes long time to replacing gas stations, and that the infrastructure isn't much accessible for people, the professor points out that California State has already decided to create a hydrogen highway. And that project is not expansive. Thus, the lecturer holds that the difficulty of infrastructure will be overcome.

 

Finally, the professor in the lecture disagrees with the ideas in the reading passage. He believes there will be more hydrogen cars in the future.

 

---

範例   

    The reading passage and the professor both discuss the bird navigation. However, the professor discords with the ideas in the reading passage. He believes that the three theorems presented in the reading are questionable, offering several reasons to oppose the article.

 

    The first reason is about the sun and star compasses theorem. Although in article it claims that some birds can use the sun or star compasses to guide them, the speaker says that people cannot explain why the birds which use sun as compasses can find the directions at night. And he also points out that there is only one species we've known using the stars as a compass. Therefore, the lecturer believes that the sun and star compass theorem is not convincing.

 

    Second, the professor refutes the reading passage by mentioning the landmark theorem. Though the article says some birds use landmarks to guild them, the speaker notes that it is only useful if the birds have flown there before. So the speaker says we can't explain why some birds released at totally strange environment can fly back to their home. Hence, the professor concludes that the landmark theorem is not correct.

 

   The third reason is associated with earth's magnetic field. While the article states that the earth's magnetic field can affect the birds, the speaker indicates that it's hard to explain why the bird can reach some areas if they just can understand where the North Pole or the South Pole is. Thus, the professor holds that there might some factor we omit, and the earth's magnetic field theorem is not totally correct.

 

    Finally, the professor in the lecture disagrees with the ideas in the reading passage. He believes the three theorems presented in the reading are not convincing.

 

 

---

範例

 

    The reading passage and the professor in the lecture both discuss the topic of imported species. However, the speaker discords with the ideas in the reading passage. She thinks that imported species aren't always bad to ecosystem and economics, offering several reasons to oppose the article.

 

    The first reason is about native species. Although in the article it claims that the imported species are stronger than native ones, and compete with them, the speaker says that imported species don't always bring negative effects on the native species. And she also says that the decreasing number of frog in North America is due to the pollution and disease, not by the imported species. Therefore, the professor believes that the imported species don't always do harm to the native species.

 

 

    Second, the professor refutes the article by mentioning ecosystem. Although the article states that cane toads destroy the ecological balance, the speaker says that cane toads are just an exception. She also points out that imported species can diversify the ecosystem, and a report shows that will outweigh the risk of bringing imported species. Hence, the professor concludes that the imported species are not always a disadvantage of the ecosystem.

 

 

     The third reason is associated with economics. While the article indicates that mesquite is bad for the indigenous plant species, the speaker argues that mesquite has become the source of food for some animals living in the desert, and the firewood for the citizens, so that can bring economic gain. Thus, the lecturer holds that imported species, like mesquite, may have upside for the economics.

 

    Finally, the professor in the lecture disagrees with the reading passage. She believes that imported species are not always bad for us.