7.30日托福·亞太考場·學術討論寫作考情分析

綜合寫(xie) 作回憶

獨立寫(xie) 作分析

獨立寫(xie) 作題目回憶：

Your professor is teaching a class on sociology. Write a post responding to the professor's question.

In your response, you should do the following.

Express and support your opinion.

Make a contribution to the discussion in your own words.

An effective response will contain at least 100 words.

Doctor This week, we’ll be discussing ways to address air pollution. One idea is introducing environmental taxes on air travel. Such taxes also referred to as ecological taxes or green taxes, are extra charges that get added to the price of airplane tickets. Money collected from these taxes could be invested in environmentally friendly technologies or in promoting other cleaner modes of transportation. Do you think there should be an environmental tax on air travel? Why or why not? AndrewWe should impose environmental taxes on air travel. These taxes might encourage people to find cheaper, more eco-friendly ways to get places. In my country, many people use planes to fly a short distance because flights are relatively cheap, when they could just as easily take a less polluting form of transportation.Claire: Additional taxes on air travel will do little to solve the problem of air pollution. Airplane tickets would become more expensive, punishing passengers without incentivizing airlines to become more environmentally friendly. The airlines should pay the price to protect the environment, not their customers

考情分析

因為(wei) 8月托福大陸考試還未開始，所以老師特意收集了一些全球其他地區考場的寫(xie) 作題目，分析給大家。也歡迎在全球其他地方考試的同學回憶題目給我，我會(hui) 第一時間分析考題給大家。

今天要分析的是7月30日亞(ya) 太考場的題目。 這道題目重複了今年4.12日考過的原題。 也是改革後寫(xie) 作團day18重點講解過的題目。算是又命中了一次考題。

? 4.12日托福寫(xie) 作考情分析| 應不應該征收航空稅？

Airplanes release a lot of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, polluting the air and contributing to climate change. To address this problem, some countries have introduced an additional tax on air travel called an ecological tax — an extra charge added to the price of an airplane ticket. Money collected from this ecological tax will be invested in less polluting modes of transportation, such as trains, which passengers are encouraged to use instead of airplanes. Do you agree or disagree that there should be an ecological tax on air travel? Why?

所以老師再次強調， 改革後的考題和之前的考題有很大的相同。尤其是上半年考過的新題，題目很長的，大家一定要關(guan) 注！

審題注意點

1.是否要給飛機征稅。 目的是為(wei) 了減少空氣汙染。可以分析的是，給飛機征稅的好壞結果，和是否真的能達到減少空氣汙染的目的。

2. 可行的思路：

--①飛機征稅，增加人們(men) 負擔，所以人們(men) 會(hui) 選擇做火車，減少直接排向空氣的汙染。

??‍?：這個(ge) 思路稍難，需要一點語料和背景常識。

--②" Money collected from these taxes could be invested in environmentally friendly technologies or in promoting other cleaner modes of transportation."， 比如：高鐵確實很方便，排汙少，也滿足了人們(men) 出行的需求。值得政府去投資。

??‍?：問題是高鐵如何寫(xie) ？答案是：high-speed rail

不同意：

--①飛機征稅並不會(hui) 給很多人減少人們(men) 坐飛機，因為(wei) 也不會(hui) 減少空氣汙染。因為(wei) 坐飛機的主要人群是中產(chan) 階級和富豪。征稅，並不會(hui) 給他們(men) 增加明顯的負擔。就像即便是私人飛機出行價(jia) 格不菲，但是仍然有很多富人樂(le) 此不疲。反而傷(shang) 害了普通民眾(zhong) 。(比如之前卡戴珊家族的Kelly，因僅(jin) 17分鍾私人飛機出行被媒體(ti) 炮轟)

--②飛機征稅會(hui) 給普通民眾(zhong) 和國家都帶來經濟負擔。飛機因為(wei) 快捷，方便，成為(wei) 很多普通民眾(zhong) 旅遊的選擇。如果征稅，就會(hui) 加重這些人的經濟負擔。其次，也會(hui) 影響相關(guan) 旅遊業(ye) 的發展。

??‍?：相同而言，不同意的思路比較生活化，大家都有語料，反而好寫(xie) 一些。

參考範文:

參考範文一：I agree with Andrew that imposing green taxes on air travel is wise for governments. This can effectively curb the air pollution caused by airplane emissions. As we know, airplanes not only emit tons of toxic gases, known as the culprits of global warming, but also discharge them directly into the upper atmosphere. There's no wind to blow those harmful gases away or rain to wash them off in the upper atmosphere, thus air travel causes more serious harm to the atmosphere than other modes of transportation like trains or buses. By imposing higher taxes on air travel and raising the price of air tickets, governments can encourage more responsible choices. In Sweden, for instance, the introduction of an aviation tax led to a decrease in air travel and an increase in train usage. Many would think twice before purchasing tickets, as no one likes those high prices coming from their wallets. With fewer people choosing air travel, the pollution it causes will diminish correspondingly. In conclusion, governments should enact this policy, as demonstrated by successful examples, to help alleviate the pollution caused by airplanes.（185字）‍

參考範文二：

I am inclined to agree with Claire's perspective that environmental taxes on air travel will not significantly curb air pollution. This is because that the primary patrons of air travel are the wealthy upper class, such as billionaires and corporate executives, who frequently travel for international business meetings, high-profile events, and luxury vacations. Some even own private jets to avoid traffic during rush hours; for example, a billionaire might use a private jet to attend a business meeting in another city on the same day. They typically wouldn't mind paying extra dollars for the comfort and speed offered by air travel. Consequently, this large group of people, unaffected by the policy, will not reduce airplane emissions. As for those less affluent, such as middle-class families who may save for months to afford an air ticket to a holiday destination like Bali or Hawaii, they are sure to suffer from the policy. However, the emissions caused by these annual family vacation only constitute too small a proportion to make a substantial difference. In conclusion, I believe governments should not impose such a policy to curb air pollution. (185字)