TOEFL TPO 35 Writing Task 1 Sample: Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they challenge the specific theories presented in the reading passage.
旧版托福格式的用户历史样本与AI评估结果。
共 45 份历史用户样本
旧版托福题型
本题目来自托福考试的旧版本。当前托福已采用不同的考试结构。这些历史样本仅作为练习参考保留。
题目概览
阅读段落
In 1912 a bookseller named Wilfrid M. Voynich acquired a beautifully illustrated handwritten book (manuscript) written on vellum (vellum is a material that was used for writing before the introduction of paper). The “Voynich manuscript,” as it became known, resembles manuscripts written in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. However, it is written in a completely unknown script. To date, no one has been able to decode the script and understand the book’s content. Several theories have been proposed to explain the origin of the Voynich manuscript.One theory is that the manuscript is a genuine work on some scientific or magical subject composed in a complex secret code. Anthony Ascham, a sixteenth-century physician and botanist, has been identified as a possible author, since many plant illustrations in the Voynich manuscript are quite similar to those in Ascham’s book on medicinal plants, A Little Herbal, published in 1550.According to some other theories, the manuscript is really a fake and its text has no real meaning. For example, it has been proposed the manuscript was created by Edward Kelley, a sixteenth-century personality who extracted money from nobles across Europe by pretending to have magical powers. Kelley may have created the manuscript as a fake magical book to sell to a wealthy noble. He used a made-up alphabet in a completely random order. It looks like a book of magical secrets, but there is no meaningful underlying text.Another theory is that the manuscript is actually a modern fake created by Wilfrid M. Voynich himself. As an antique book dealer, Voynich certainly had the knowledge of what old manuscripts should look like and could have created a fake one. Perhaps Voynich’s plan was to sell the fake as a mysterious old book if he received an attractive offer.
题目
Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they challenge the specific theories presented in the reading passage.
用户样本与评估结果
用户样本
The reading suggests three theories to speculate about the author of the Voynich manuscript.However, the speaker in the listening thought that none of the people mentioned were the authors of the manuscript. The first theory mentioned in the reading is that Anthony Ascham is the author of the manuscript, because he published a book called A Little Herbal in 1550, and the illustrations are very similar to those in the Voynich manuscript. On the contrary, in the words of the speaker, Anthony Ascham is just an ordinary scientist and everything he draws in his illustrations is not original, Anthony Ascham's illustrations are based on ordinary plants from other well-known sources. Moreover, the text of the manuscript is complex and mysterious, which does not fit his status as an ordinary scientist. The speaker therefore concluded that he was not the author. In addition, the reading also believes that Edward Kelly is the creator of the manuscript, the reading believes that the manuscript is a forgery, that the text does not really have any meaning, it is just a way for him to make money. But according to the speaker, although Edward Kelley was an artist, he didn't need to sell such a manuscript in theory, because he had to be careful with it, he could have just sold simple books because they were enough to fool people in the 16th century. Finally, the reading passage considers the manuscript to be a modern copy of Voynich himself, because he was a bookseller and knew what an old manuscript should have looked like. However, the speaker claimed that the paper and ink of the manuscript may be 400 years old, and the paper may be counterfeit but the ink of 400 years cannot be counterfeit. As a result, the manuscript may have existed for centuries when Voynich acquired it.
评估结果
1.Sub Scores
Task fulfillment: 4 Organization: 4 Coherence and Cohesion: 4 Language Use: 3
2.Estimated Scores
Estimated Score: 25
3.Task completeness
The essay does a good job of summarizing the points made in the lecture and explaining how they challenge the specific theories presented in the reading passage. However, there is room for improvement in terms of language use and clarity. To enhance task fulfillment, it would be helpful to provide more specific examples from the lecture and to explain them more clearly.
Example 1: Original: "On the contrary, in the words of the speaker, Anthony Ascham is just an ordinary scientist and everything he draws in his illustrations is not original." Improved: "The lecturer argues that Anthony Ascham was an ordinary scientist who did not have any groundbreaking ideas, making it unlikely that he would create such a complex coded manuscript."
Example 2: Original: "But according to the speaker, although Edward Kelley was an artist, he didn't need to sell such a manuscript in theory." Improved: "The lecturer contends that while Edward Kelley was known for deceiving people, creating such an intricate manuscript would have been unnecessary since simpler forgeries would have sufficed during his time."
4.Essay structure and organization
The essay has a clear structure with an introduction, body paragraphs addressing each theory, and a conclusion. However, some transitions between ideas could be improved to enhance coherence and cohesion.
Example 1: Original: "In addition, the reading also believes that Edward Kelly is the creator of the manuscript..." Improved: "Regarding the second theory presented in the reading passage about Edward Kelly being the creator of the manuscript..."
Example 2: Original: "Finally, the reading passage considers..." Improved: "As for the third theory proposed by the reading passage which suggests..."
- Grammar
The reading suggests three theories to speculate about the author of the VoynichVoice(misspelling) manuscript.However However(Missing space between sentences), the speaker in the listening thought that none of the people mentioned were the authors of the manuscript.
The first theory mentioned in the reading is that Anthony AschamAssam(misspelling) is the author of the manuscript, because he published a book called A Little Herbal in 1550, and the illustrations are very similar to those in the VoynichVoice(misspelling) manuscript. On the contrary, in the words of the speaker, Anthony AschamAssam(misspelling) is just an ordinary scientist and everything he draws in his illustrations is not original, Anthony AschamAssam(misspelling)'s illustrations are based on ordinary plants from other well-known sources. Moreover, the text of the manuscript is complex and mysterious, which does not fit his status as an ordinary scientist. The speaker therefore concluded that he was not the author.
In addition, the reading also believes that Edward Kelly is the creator of the manuscript, the reading believes that the manuscript is a forgery, that the text does not really have any meaning, it is just a way for him to make money. But according to the speaker, although Edward Kelley was an artist, he didn't need to sell such a manuscript in theory, because he had to be careful with it, he could have just sold simple books because they were enough to fool people in the 16th century.
Finally, the reading passage considers the manuscript to be a modern copy of VoynichVoice(misspelling) himself, because he was a bookseller and knew what an old manuscript should have looked like. However, the speaker claimed that the paper and ink of the manuscript may be 400 years old, and the paper may be counterfeit but, but(Detects missing comma before "but") the ink of 400 years cannot be counterfeit. As a result, the manuscript may have existed for centuries when VoynichVoice(misspelling) acquired it.
6.Revised Essay
The reading passage presents three theories regarding the authorship of the Voynich manuscript. However, the lecturer disputes each of these theories, asserting that none of the individuals mentioned are likely to be the manuscript's author.
The first theory in the reading passage suggests that Anthony Ascham could be the author due to similarities between plant illustrations in his book, A Little Herbal, and those in the Voynich manuscript. Contrarily, the lecturer argues that Ascham was an ordinary scientist who did not possess any groundbreaking ideas. As such, it is improbable that he would create a complex coded manuscript like the Voynich manuscript.
Regarding the second theory presented in the reading passage about Edward Kelly being the creator of the manuscript, it posits that Kelly fabricated it as a fake magical book to deceive wealthy nobles for financial gain. The lecturer contends that while Kelly was known for deceiving people, creating such an intricate manuscript would have been unnecessary since simpler forgeries would have sufficed during his time. Therefore, it is unlikely that Kelly is responsible for producing this elaborate work.
As for the third theory proposed by the reading passage which suggests Wilfrid M. Voynich himself created a modern forgery of an ancient manuscript to sell as a mysterious old book, this too is challenged by the lecturer. The speaker points out that both vellum and ink used in creating this document have been dated using modern methods and found to be at least 400 years old. While Voynich may have been able to acquire vellum pages from other old manuscripts, obtaining 400-year-old ink would have been nearly impossible. Consequently, it can be inferred that the Voynich manuscript existed centuries before Voynich obtained it.
Taking into account both perspectives from the reading passage and lecture, it becomes evident that none of these three theories provide a satisfactory explanation for identifying who authored or created this enigmatic manuscript. (319 words)
7.Essay Grading
The reading suggests passage presents three theories to speculate about the author of the Voynich manuscript.However, the speaker in the listening thought regarding the authorship of the Voynich manuscript. However, the lecturer disputes each of these theories, asserting that none of the people individuals mentioned were the authors of the manuscript. are likely to be the manuscript's author. (This sentence provides a clear and concise introduction to the essay's main topic.)
The first theory mentioned in the reading is passage suggests that Anthony Ascham is could be the author of the manuscript, because he published a book called due to similarities between plant illustrations in his book, A Little Herbal in 1550, and the illustrations are very similar to Herbal, and those in the Voynich manuscript. On the contrary, in the words of the speaker, Anthony Contrarily, (This word is used to show contrast between two ideas) the lecturer argues that Ascham is just was an ordinary scientist and everything who did not possess any groundbreaking ideas. As such, it is improbable (This word choice strengthens the argument) that he draws would create a complex coded manuscript like the Voynich manuscript.
Regarding (This transition helps introduce a new theory) the second theory presented in the reading passage about Edward Kelly being the creator of the manuscript, it posits that Kelly fabricated it as a fake magical book to deceive wealthy nobles for financial gain. The lecturer contends (Using "contends" emphasizes disagreement with this theory) that while Kelly was known for deceiving people, creating such an intricate manuscript would have been unnecessary since simpler forgeries would have sufficed during his illustrations time. Therefore, it is not original, Anthony Ascham's illustrations are based on ordinary plants unlikely that Kelly is responsible for producing this elaborate work.
As for (This transition introduces another theory) the third theory proposed by the reading passage which suggests Wilfrid M. Voynich himself created a modern forgery of an ancient manuscript to sell as a mysterious old book, this too is challenged by the lecturer. The speaker points out that both vellum and ink used in creating this document have been dated using modern methods and found to be at least 400 years old. While Voynich may have been able to acquire vellum pages from other well-known sources. Moreover, the text of the old manuscripts, obtaining 400-year-old ink would have been nearly impossible. Consequently, (This word shows the result of the previous statement) it can be inferred that the Voynich manuscript is complex and mysterious, which does not fit his status as an ordinary scientist. The speaker therefore concluded that he was not the author. existed centuries before Voynich obtained it.
In addition, the reading also believes that Edward Kelly is the creator of the manuscript, the reading believes that the manuscript is a forgery, that the text does not really have any meaning, it is just a way for him to make money. But according to the speaker, although Edward Kelley was an artist, he didn't need to sell such a manuscript in theory, because he had to be careful with it, he could have just sold simple books because they were enough to fool people in the 16th century. ¶ Finally, Taking into account both perspectives from the reading passage considers the manuscript to be a modern copy of Voynich himself, because he was a bookseller and knew what an old manuscript should have looked like. However, the speaker claimed that the paper and ink of the manuscript may be 400 years old, and the paper may be counterfeit but the ink of 400 years cannot be counterfeit. As a result, the manuscript may have existed and lecture, it becomes evident that none of these three theories provide a satisfactory explanation for centuries when Voynich acquired it.identifying who authored or created this enigmatic manuscript. (This sentence effectively summarizes the main points of the essay and provides a strong conclusion.)
8.Mind Map
-
Introduction
- Reading passage: three theories
- Lecture: disputes all theories
-
Theory 1: Anthony Ascham
- Reading: similarities in plant illustrations
- Lecture: ordinary scientist, no groundbreaking ideas, improbable author
-
Theory 2: Edward Kelly
- Reading: fake magical book for financial gain
- Lecture: unnecessary complexity, simpler forgeries would suffice, unlikely creator
-
Theory 3: Wilfrid M. Voynich
- Reading: modern forgery of ancient manuscript to sell as mysterious old book
- Lecture: vellum and ink dated to be at least 400 years old, nearly impossible to obtain old ink, existed centuries before Voynich obtained it.
-
Conclusion
- None of the three theories provide a satisfactory explanation
9.Key Words
| Word | Phonetic Symbol | Part of Speech | English Definition | Sample Sentence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contrarily | /kənˈtrɛrəli/ | Adverb | In a contrary or opposite way; on the other hand | Contrarily, the lecturer argues that Ascham was an ordinary scientist. |
| Improbable | /ɪmˈprɒbəbl/ | Adjective | Not likely to be true or to happen | It is improbable that he would create a complex coded manuscript. |
| Posit | /ˈpɒzɪt/ | Verb | To put forward as fact or as a basis for argument | The theory posits that Kelly fabricated the manuscript as a fake magical book. |
| Contend | /kənˈtɛnd/ | Verb | To assert or maintain firmly | The lecturer contends that simpler forgeries would have sufficed. |
| Intricate | /ˈɪntrɪkət/ | Adjective | Very complicated or detailed | Creating such an intricate manuscript would have been unnecessary. |
| Elaborate | /ɪˈlæbərət/ | Adjective | Involving many carefully arranged parts or details; detailed and complicated in design and planning | Kelly is not responsible for producing this elaborate work. |
| Challenged | /ˈʧælɪndʒd/ | Verb | To dispute the truth or validity of | This theory is challenged by the lecturer. |
| Consequently | /ˈkɒnsɪkwəntli/ | Adverb | As a result; therefore | Consequently, it can be inferred that the manuscript existed centuries before. |
| Enigmatic | /ˌenɪgˈmætɪk/ | Adjective | Difficult to interpret or understand; mysterious | None of the theories explain who authored this enigmatic manuscript. |
| Satisfactory | /sætɪsˈfæktəri/ | Adjective | Fulfilling expectations or needs; acceptable, though not outstanding | The three theories do not provide a satisfactory explanation for identifying the author. |
