3.29托福寫作範文+分析| 航空新題範文

周六考試後，我做了一個(ge) 小調整，考試中3套題目，哪一套最多同學考到。當然因為(wei) 樣本原因，結果肯定不精準。但是也出乎了我的預料投票最多的反而是考後同學最少給我回憶到的-第3套新題。

可能是考到這套題目的同學才會(hui) 積極看我的考題回憶。所以，在收集了當天考題後，我把這道題詳細分析了，分享給大家。

難度：難

綜合寫(xie) 作回憶

暫缺

學術討論寫(xie) 作

題目回憶：

Air travel會(hui) 釋放有害氣體(ti) ，環境不友好etc. 問如果能by train的情況下是否該ban掉short flight.

審題注意點:

1.在改革後，航空飛行逐漸成為(wei) 托福的一個(ge) 熱門話題。也許是跟目前航天飛行迅速發展有密切關(guan) 係。由此可見，托福確實是一個(ge) 緊跟時事的考試。

2.題目聚焦於(yu) -short flight短途飛行，也提到了有替代途經-by train.說明飛行不是唯一能到達的方式。大家不用擔心到達問題。

3.“air travel會(hui) 釋放有害氣體(ti) ”：題目給大家提供了一個(ge) 思路，如果有語料準備的同學可以選擇這條思路。

-因為(wei) air travel會(hui) 釋放大量的有害氣體(ti) ，包括co2,和Nox(氮氧化物),顆粒物等,這些物質對大氣造成溫室效應，加劇氣候變化。(Air travel releases a large amount of harmful gases, including carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter. These substances contribute to the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, intensifying climate change.)

-並且，短途的釋放量會(hui) 更大。因為(wei) 航班在起飛和降落時消耗的燃料更多。(the missions are greater for short-haul flight because more fuel is consumed during takeoff and landing.)

⭕️如果沒有語料支持的同學，慎寫(xie) 。謹防使用中式英文，導致被扣分。

4.“air travel和by train”對比：飛行的好處是能夠快速到達，滿足尤其是有急事的旅客需求，比如商務，醫療，個(ge) 人家庭等緊急需求。

（⭕️此處需要注意題目是否限定了是隻針對普通旅客的出行。）

5.“ban”太過絕對，沒有考慮到一些特殊緊急情況。需要航空公司，政府，科技等攜手，推動更環保的技術和政策。

參考範文 :

I believe that banning short flights outright is an impractical policy, even though alternatives such as high-speed trains and buses exist.While it is truethat short flights cause greater environmental harm than long-distance ones, primarily due to increased emissions during takeoff and landing, this does notjustify an outright ban.Short flights serve critical purposes, particularly in urgent situations. For example,busy businesspeople often need to attendlast-minute meetingsto finalize important deals, while top-notch doctors on call may be required to perform emergency surgeries in other citiesat a moment’s notice. In these situations, saving hours of road time canmake a significant difference—whether it’s for securing a business contract or saving a life. Hence, short flights provide the most practical solutionfor those facing urgent needs.

Instead of implementing a blanket ban, governments could adopt more balanced approaches, such as investing in cleaner technologies like sustainable aviation fuel or imposing higher taxes on short flights todeter unnecessary travel.Such measures could reduce environmental damage without completelydisrupting the conveniencethat short flights provide.

In conclusion, while the environmental impact of short flights is undeniable, banning them is not the most effective solution.More nuanced and sustainable policies should be pursued to address the issue while maintaining essential mobility.