TOEFL100点以上を目指す社会人の方のための集中勉強会のご案内です。

一回の受講で、100点までの道のりが明確に見えるようになりますので、安心してその後の勉強を実施することができます。

TOEFL学習記録155

How to master writing

(注意:下記の作文は私の長い勉強過程の一時期に書いたもので、使われているテンプレート、書き方などは現在使っているものと大きく違いますのでご注意ください。 勉強会でご紹介したものが現在のテンプレート、書き方です。 )

Writing Integratedの練習

Writing Integratedは時間との闘いです。テンプレートを完全にマスターし、短時間で書けるよう何回も練習しましょう。

リスニングの内容理解がIntegratedの一番重要なこと。リスニングが弱い人は、高得点にならない。教科書の模範解答の下線の項目が自分の作文に全部入っているかチェックしてほしい。Lはできるだけ各段落2文入れるように心がける。

----------------------------------------------
02
The reading passage presents three theories to corroborate an argument that the sudden disappearance of the Anasazi Indians was caused by wars with other tribes. However, the professor claims that this argument does not hold water and presents his own reasons to substantiate his contention that the lack of water caused the sudden demise of the Anasazi Indians.

The first theory described by the reading passage is that many burned sites suggest that the Anasazi Indians were conquered by other warring tribes, as it was customary for Indian tribes to burn their enemy’s sites. On the contrary, the professor casts doubt on this contention by saying that the Anasazi burned their sites themselves as ceremonies to hope to find new sites with more water sources.

The second theory identified by the reading passage is that many valuable personal items left in the sites suggest that the Anasazi Indians were either killed or had no time to take their belongings with them when attacked by enemies. Conversely, the professor contends that those personal items were simply left behind when they migrated to new locations with more water supplies.

The third theory suggested by the reading passage is that other tribes were jealous of the rich water lands, attacked the Anasazi and drove them away. On the other hand, the professor argues that the Anasazi disappeared because the increased population could not survive on the limited water supplies.

In conclusion, the reading passage presents three theories to corroborate the argument that the sudden disappearance of the Anasazi Indians was caused by wars with other tribes. However, the professor claims that this argument does not hold water and presents his own reasons to substantiate the contention that the lack of water caused the sudden demise of the Anasazi Indians.
------------------------------------------

03
The reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate that Neanderthals were able to speak. However, the professor states these reasons are unsubstantiated and provides his own compelling reasons to corroborate that Neanderthals could not speak.

The first reason described by the reading passage is that Neanderthals had the head size 10 % larger than that of humans and must have been able to speak. Conversely, the professor says this argument is illogical because larger brain does not automatically leads to the speech capability. He states that the complexity of brain rather than the size is an important attribute to be able to speak and that the brain of Neanderthals was not complex.

The second reason identified by the reading passage is that a hyoid bone found over twenty years ago is an indication that Neanderthals were able to communicate with speech. On the contrary, while the professor agrees that the hyoid bone contributes to a wider range of tongue movement, she states that this contention does not hold water because some monkey having hyoid bones are not capable of speech.

The third reason described by the reading passage is that Neanderthals developed muscles around their stomach, which helped them to create sounds required for speech. On the other hand, the professor points out that this hypothesis is questionable because highly developed stomach muscles were not used for speech. They were rather used to control breathing so that Neanderthals could travel a long distance quickly or climb mountains easily.

In conclusion, the reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate that Neanderthals were able to speak, whereas the professor states these reasons are unsupportable and provides his own compelling rebuttals to corroborate that Neanderthals could not speak.

Allege主張する
Ludicrous ばかげた
Simply put 簡単に言うと
Concede 認める
That much is true そこまでは正しいが、
Integral to ~に不可欠
Engage in speech ~を行う
----------------------------------------------------------------
04
The reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate that humans caused the extinction of dodos in Mauritius. However, the professor states these reasons are uncorroborated and provides his own compelling reasons to support that humans did not cause the extinction.

The first reason described by the reading passage is that Dutch settlers killed dodos for eating. Conversely, the professor says this argument is illogical because Dutch settlers hated to eat dodos due to its hard texture and bad taste. He states that the complexity of brain rather than the size is an important attribute to be able to speak and that the brain of Neanderthals was not complex.

The second reason identified by the reading passage is that deforestation by Dutch settlers drove dodos away from their habitats for laying eggs and eating fruits. On the contrary, the professor states that this contention does not hold water because a large portion of forest was still intact when the last dodo was spotted and other bird species survived.

The third reason described by the reading passage is that a disease brought by the settlers may have caused the destruction of the dodos. On the other hand, the professor points out his own theory that the population of dodos was already in decline due to natural forces like hurricanes when the Dutch settlers arrived. They may have observed the last small population of dodos that were destined to extinct anyway.
教授は、リーディングの理由に反論しているわけではなく、単に自分の別の意見を言っているので、this contention is uncorroborated because~は使えない。リスニングの論拠をよく聞いて、反論か別の意見かをよく判別すること。

In conclusion, the reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate that humans caused the extinction of dodos in Mauritius, whereas the professor states these reasons are unsupportable and provides his own compelling rebuttals to corroborate that humans did not cause the extinction.
語数を増やすために、必ずイントロをカットペーストして、一部単語を入れ替える。E-rater対策。
---------------------------------------------
05
Archaeopteryxをコピーして、ペーストできるようにしておく。時間短縮。

The reading passage presents three reasons of Mr. Hoyle to substantiate that both the London Specimen and the Berlin Specimen of Archaeopteryx are fabricated forgeries. However, the professor states these reasons are unsubstantiated and provides his own compelling reasons to corroborate that both the London Specimen and the Berlin Specimen of Archaeopteryx are actually genuine and legitimate fossils.

The first reason described by the reading passage is that Mr. Owen forged the fossil because he was a strong advocate of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Conversely, the professor says this argument is illogical because Mr. Owen was not an avid follower of Darwin. He further states that Mr. Owen wrote a paper on the very fossil and any forgery would undermine his paper and his reputation as a scientist.

The second reason identified by the reading passage is that these fossils must have been forged because details of feathers are shown on the fossils, while other fossils of Archaeopteryx do not show them. The reading further says that the fossils were fabricated by imprinting a feather on a thin cement plate. On the contrary, the professor states that this contention does not hold water because Mr. Owen was an astronomer and he did not know how to forge fossils. In addition, the professor states that German lime stone was able to capture details of feathers, as other bird fossils show details of feathers.

The third reason described by the reading passage is that one half of the fossil was perfectly preserved but the other half was not. On the other hand, the professor points out that this hypothesis is questionable because this can be explained by a bird on a hard surface covered by limestone later. On top of that, one half of the fossil was polished to make the impression clearer, of which Mr. Hoyle had no knowledge.

In conclusion, the reading passage presents three reasons of Mr. Hoyle to substantiate that both the London Specimen and the Berlin Specimen of Archaeopteryx are fabricated forgeries. However, the professor states these reasons are unsubstantiated and provides his own compelling rebuttals to corroborate that both the London Specimen and the Berlin Specimen of Archaeopteryx are actually genuine fossils.

Staunch断固たる
この問題はかなり難しいです。人の名前が複数でてくる。リスニングの内容が複雑。この問題がちゃんとできたら相当な有段者です。
-------------------------------------------------------
06
The reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate that the fire of 1988 in Yosemite inflicted irrevocable damage to the park and lost many tourists. However, the professor states these reasons are unsubstantiated and provides his own compelling reasons to corroborate that the Yosemite is recovering from the fire damage and recapturing the tourist.

The first reason described by the reading passage is that the fire of 1988 damaged the ecosystem of the Yosemite irrevocably. Conversely, the professor says this argument is illogical because burned materials provide more nutrition to the ground for new vegetation. In addition, burned trees allow more sunlight for new vegetation.

The second reason identified by the reading passage is that a large number of animals were trapped in the fire and killed and few animals came back to the park. On the contrary, the professor states that this contention does not hold water because new species of animals are coming back to the part to replace those killed in the fire. For example, rabbits, once very rare in the park, are dwelling in newly created vegetation.

The third reason described by the reading passage is that the park has lost many tourists permanently because of the irreversible damage done on the park. On the other hand, the professor points out that this hypothesis is questionable because the decline of tourism was partly due to the poor economic situations after the great fire. Since the mid-1990s, the number of visitors to the park has risen again.

In conclusion, the reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate that the fire of 1988 in Yosemite inflicted irrevocable damage to the park and lost many tourists. However, the professor states these reasons are unsubstantiated and provides his own convincing rebuttals to support that the Yosemite is recovering from the fire damage and recapturing the tourist.
-------------------------------------------------------
07
The reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate that admission fees to national parks should be abolished. However, the professor provides his own compelling reasons to corroborate that the admission fees should continue.

The first reason described by the reading passage is that national parks belong to the country and the citizen of the country. So, it is absurd to pay fees to enter their own homes. Conversely, the professor says the admission fees are required to maintain the facilities and pay salaries to people working in the parks. Without the fees, taxes have to be raised.

The second reason identified by the reading passage is that charging admission fees discourage people to visit national parks. Because of high fees, many people enjoy vacations at other places. On the contrary, the professor states that this contention does not hold water because paying admission fees actually encourage people to visit some of smaller parks. If the fees are not charged, famous national parks like Yellow Stone would be overcrowded.

The third reason described by the reading passage is that collecting fees makes visitors wait for a long time and require employees to be occupied by collecting fees rather than by engaging in other important services. On the other hand, the professor points out that the admission fees can be used to improve the quality of services and the safety of visitors. For example, park rangers can stop and keep potentially dangerous people and cars from entering the park.

In conclusion, the reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate that admission fees to national parks should be abolished. However, the professor provides his own compelling reasons to corroborate that the admission fees should continue.

-------------------------------------------------------
08
The reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate the benefits of fluoride use in water. However, the professor states these reasons are unsubstantiated and provides his own compelling reasons to corroborate that fluoride in drinking water is detrimental to people.

The first reason described by the reading passage is that fluoride prevents tooth decay. Studies show that fluoride reduces the rate of tooth decay and lost teeth. Conversely, the professor says this argument is illogical because most of tooth paste brands contain fluoride and there is no need to add fluoride in water. For example, some European countries like Sweden and Netherland have stopped the use of fluoride in water for over 30 years and there has been on decline in the dental health.

The second reason identified by the reading passage is that fluoride helps cleaning water quality. For example, WHO recommends developing nations to increase the content of fluoride in water to improve the water quality. On the contrary, the professor states that this contention does not hold water because if used in large amount, fluoride has harmful side effects and it dissolves lead out of the water pipes and may harm the health of people. Furthermore, the professor says that other safer water cleaning methods are available such as filtering, and using chlorine and UV light.

The third reason described by the reading passage is that fluoride helps to develop stronger bones and reduces the number of older women getting osteoporosis. On the other hand, the professor points out that this hypothesis is questionable because fluoride is reported to cause a rare bone cancer to young children. In addition, fluoride is directly deposited in bone to cause stiffness, pain, and brittle bone.

In conclusion, the reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate the benefits of fluoride use in drinking water. However, the professor states these reasons are unsubstantiated and provides his own compelling rebuttals to corroborate that fluoride in drinking water is actually harmful to people.

これはなかなか良い問題。
-------------------------------------------------------
09

online pharmaciesをコピぺする。

The reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate that online pharmacies should be banned from selling their products. However, the professor states these reasons are unsubstantiated and provides his own compelling reasons to corroborate that online pharmacies should be allowed to sell their products.

The first reason described by the reading passage is that many medicines sold by online pharmacies do not comply with the FDA guidelines. Particularly, some plant and animal derived medicines are not tested and approved by the FDA, therefore, they may be harmful to the users. Conversely, the professor says this argument is illogical because many herbal medicines have been used in Asian countries for hundreds of years without harming people. In addition, morning after birth control pills have been used in France safely.

The second reason identified by the reading passage is that purchasing products from online pharmacies without consulting doctors or pharmacists maybe dangerous. On the contrary, the professor states that this contention does not hold water because visiting doctors takes time and money and all information concerning drugs is available on internet. The information about drugs on the internet is mostly written by doctors and pharmacists.

The third reason described by the reading passage is that some products sold by online pharmacies are manufactured in foreign countries and their qualities are unsure. On the other hand, , the professor points out that with rising medical costs in the U.S., consumers should be allowed to select cheaper products from online pharmacies as opposed to filling the pockets of already rich pharmaceutical companies.

In conclusion, the reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate that online pharmacies should be banned from selling their products, whereas the professor states these reasons are uncorroborated and provides his own persuading rebuttals to corroborate that online pharmacies should be allowed to sell their products.
Frequenting drug stores しばしば訪れる
myriad problems 無数の
unwitting customers (情報を)知らない客
do themselves more harm than good 使用者に害を与える
masquerading as legitimate medicines 本当の薬を装って
should not deter consumers from buying online medicines. やめさせる(抑止する)
line the pockets of already wealthy companies. ポケットを金で一杯にする
-------------------------------------------------------
10
The reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate that Marco Polo never visited China. However, the professor claims that these reasons are uncorroborated and provides his own compelling rebuttals to support that Marco Polo actually visited China.

The first reason described by the reading passage is that there are many discrepancies among accounts of his journey. Some believe that a romance writer forged a story. Conversely, the professor states this contention is totally misunderstanding. One book was actually written by his fellow French romance prisoner. Marco Polo wrote his own book in Italian but while translated to Latin, the original was lost and then translated to Italian again, which explains differences among different manuscripts.

The second reason identified by the reading passage is that Marco Polo did not mention drinking tea in China or the Great Wall and he never learned Chinese language. The professor argues that this contention is groundless because he stayed in the northern China where tea drinking was not common. In addition, he entered China from the west side, while the Great Walls were located. Since he had a Persian translator, he did not have to learn any Chinese.

The third reason of the reading passage is that Marco Polo’s name was never recorded in Chinese documents. The professor says this argument is illogical because he called himself in Chinese or Mongolian names, or he was not considered an important person by Chinese, so his name was never mentioned in the historical documents.

In conclusion, the reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate that Marco Polo never visited China, whereas the professor claims that these reasons are uncorroborated and provides his own compelling rebuttals to support that Marco Polo actually visited China.

20分で書けるよう簡潔に書くこと。タイマーで時間を測って、17分くらいで書けるようにする。残りの3分で見直しする。
コツ:
The first reason described by the reading passage is that
Conversely, the professor states this contention is groundless because
これをコピペして2回ペーストする。

-------------------------------------------------------
11

The reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate that Admiral Zheng He’s Chinese fleet reached the North America in the fifteenth century. However, the professor claims this argument is uncorroborated and provides his own compelling rebuttals.

The first reason described by the reading passage is that Bimini Road, an underwater road or dock must have been built by the Chinese fleet due to its Chinese features.
Conversely, the professor claims this contention is unjustifiable because Bimini Road is made of natural lime stone formations and several of these are observed in Bahamas.

The second reason identified by the reading passage is that anchors found in California resemble those used by Chinese many centuries ago.
On the contrary, the professor claims this contention is groundless because those anchors were brought by recent Chinese immigrants who were engaged in fishing mere one hundred years ago.

The third reason pointed out by the reading passage is that the Newport Tower resembles that of Chinese light house.
On the other hand, the professor claims this contention is questionable because it resembles one of English windmills and the builder may be a local American family. In addition, according to a carbon dating, motor used to build the tower was mid-seventeenth century, not fifteenth century.

The reading passage presents three reasons to corroborate that Admiral Zheng He’s Chinese fleet reached the North America in the fifteenth century, whereas the professor claims this argument is unsubstantiated and provides his own compelling rebuttals to conclude that the Chinese fleet never reached the North America in the fifteenth century.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12
The reading passage presents three reasons to negate the hypothesis that human settled in Monte Verde Chile 12500 years ago. However, the professor claims those reasons are uncorroborated and provides his own compelling rebuttals to conclude that humans did inhabited in Monte Verde Chile 12500 years ago.

The first reason supplied by the reading passage is that no hunting tools like spearheads and arrows were found at the site, suggesting that they were not hunters who lived so many years ago. Conversely, the professor maintains that this argument is questionable because stone and bone with meat were found, indicating they were actually hunters. They also did not have knowledge to make primitive weapons.

The second reason stated by the reading passage is that farmers disturbed the site so that the exact ages of artifacts cannot be identified. On the contrary, the professor states that this contention is questionable because farmers did not disturb the bitumen site and only touched the upper layers and the lower layers were left untouched.

The third reason supplied by the reading passage is that many artifacts were not carbon dated due to the impact of bitumen. On the other hand, the professor argues that this statement is questionable because about 25 tests with different methods were actually conducted and the majority of items were determined to be 12500 years old.

In conclusion, the reading passage presents three reasons to negate the hypothesis that the first humans inhabited in Monte Verde Chile 12500 years ago, whereas the professor claims those reasons are unsubstantiated and provides his own persuading rebuttals to conclude that humans settled in Monte Verde Chile 12500 years ago.

peat bog泥炭湿原
rendered any dating useless (made any dating useless)
lend them more accuracy (give them more accuracy)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
13
The reading passage states that the treasure information of the Copper Scrolls found in a cave near the Dead Sea is fiction and that no such treasure existed. The professor, however, states that the treasure actually existed.

First, the reading assuage states that the scrolls are written in an ancient form of Hebrew that is difficult to translate and that the scrolls contains errors, which makes the understanding of the scrolls very difficult. The professor states that such errors were made intentionally so that only limited number of people can understand the scrolls.

Second, the reading passage says that the amount of treasure described in the scrolls is so huge that it seems to be impossible that such treasure can exist. The Qumran sect that made the scrolls are ascetic people, so that huge amount of treasure does not make sense. Conversely, the professor states that correctly translated with the Egyptian counting system, the amount of treasure is much less and believable amount.

Finally, the reading claims that some scholars and treasure hunters dug various sites to find no such treasure. The professor maintains that a place indicated in the scrolls is a city in Egypt and much of the treasure has been already dug up and displayed in museums.

The reading passage states that the treasure information of the Copper Scrolls found in a cave near the Dead Sea is a fiction and that no such treasure existed in large amount. The professor, however, states that the treasure actually existed but in less amount.

buff ファン
ascetic 禁欲主義の
この問題は難しい。テンプレートでは処理できない。
--------------------------------------------------------
14
The reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate that a big explosion in 1908 in Siberia was caused by a gas explosion. However, the professor claims that those reasons are uncorroborated and provides his own compelling rebuttals to conclude that the explosion was caused by an asteroid exploded in the air before hitting the ground.

The first reason provided by the reading passage is that no rocks or minerals from the asteroid were found and no one witnessed an asteroid streaking across the sky.
Conversely, the professor maintains that this contention is groundless because as the asteroid exploded in the air and broken into small pieces, no one could detect small amount of asteroid remnants.

The second reason provided by the reading passage is that no impact craters were found and an area of forest 50 kilometers wide was devastated, which is more consistent with a methane explosion. On the contrary, the professor states that this argument is questionable because as the asteroid exploded up in the air, no impact craters were formed. Furthermore, the explosion in the air can explain the destruction of trees in the large area, which was also simulated by Russian scientists.

The third reason provided by the reading passage is that Tunguska area has many ponds and peat bogs that can generate a large amount of methane gas, which was ignited by a natural or human force. On the other hand, the professor points out that this theory is dubious because the amount of gas required to cause this magnitude of destruction is so huge that this area alone could not generate such a huge amount of gas. In addition, no one witnessed fires in the forest.

In conclusion, the reading passage presents three reasons to corroborate that a big explosion in 1908 in Siberia was caused by a gas explosion, whereas the professor claims that those reasons are unsubstantiated and provides his own persuading rebuttals to conclude that the explosion was caused by an asteroid exploded in the air before hitting the ground.

テンプレートで対応可能。
--------------------------------------------
15

The reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate that the life exists in Mars. However, the professor claims that these reasons are uncorroborated and provides her own compelling rebuttals to conclude that it is premature to declare the life existence in Mars.

The first reason presented by the reading passage is that the presence of methane on Mars suggests some form of living organisms replenishing the gas. Conversely, the professor claims that this assertion is groundless because methane can originate from other sources such as volcanic activities. Mars still maintains some volcanic activities.


The second reason given by the reading passage is that two samples of meteorites supposedly from Mars show the sign of bacteria. On the contrary, the professor claims that this argument is unjustifiable because those meteorites may come from the earth and the testing on bacteria has just started and the final conclusion may turn out to be a different conclusion. In addition, the professor says that two samples are too few of samples to draw an conclusion upon.


The third reason stated by the reading passage is that hydrogen, water, and underground free-flowing water suggest the possibility of life forms.
On the other hand, the professor argues that this contention is illogical because water on Mars are frozen and life forms find it difficult to survive. Furthermore, the underground free-flowing water has not been verified yet.

The reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate that the life exists in Mars, whereas the professor claims that these reasons are unsubstantiated and provides her own persuading rebuttals to conclude that it is still premature to declare the life existence in Mars.

That is a long shot. 成功確率が低いこと。
Even if true, …and that is a long shot…it will take some time before we get underground to see what is going on beneath the Martian surface.
本当だとしても…そんなことはないとは思うが…火星の地下を目で見られるのは相当先の事。
テンプレート対応可能。
---------------------------------------------------------------------
16

The reading passage presents three negative aspects of buzzers, people hired by companies to promote their products. However, the professor claims these reasons are unsubstantiated and provides her own compelling rebuttals to identify positive aspects of buzzers.

The first reason provided by the reading passage is that buzzers are dishonest because they may not like the products they are promoting and they only do so because they are financially rewarded by companies.
Conversely, the professor claims that this argument is unjustifiable because people can tell who are lying. In addition, companies hire only those who genuinely love their products and what buzzers are doing is nothing deceitful. The professor worked as a buzzer and she loved the product she was promoting.

The second reason identified by the reading passage is that buzzers make consumers less objective about the products they purchase. On the contrary, the professor argues that this contention is questionable because people do not buy a product unless they receive right information.


The third reason pointed out by the reading passage is that buzzers do harm society by causing distrust among members of society. Once they find out buzzers, they would not trust anyone. On the other hand, the professor maintains that this theory is doubtful because buzzers actually can help build trust among people by telling how good the products are and informing others of new products.

The reading passage presents three negative aspects of buzzers, whereas the professor claims these reasons are uncorroborated and provides her own persuading rebuttals to identify positive aspects of buzzers.

leave much to be desired. 改善の余地がある、ダメな点が多い
hype 誇大広告する
impart valuable information to the public 伝える 開示する
word-of-mouth marketing

リスニングの理解が難しかった。難問
------------------------------------------------------------
17

The reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate the positive aspects of running one’s own businesses. However, the professor claims that this argument is uncorroborated and provides his own compelling rebuttals to conclude that running one’s own businesses is not as easy as it sounds.

The first reason presented by the reading passage is that in corporations, your idea is not listened to or acted upon due to their multiple layers of bureaucracy. Conversely, the professor states that this contention is groundless because when you run a private business, your idea is often already patented.

The second reason pointed out by the reading passage is that corporations no longer provide job securities; tens of thousands of employees are fired by large corporations due to financial situation. On the contrary, the professor states that this argument is illogical because private businesses are even less secure. For example, nine out of ten newly opened restaurants go out of business within the first six months and owners lose all his or her personal assets do pay off debts. In addition, the professor mentions many troubles each business owner must go through such as getting permits from government, paying rents and wages.

The third reason given by the reading passage is that insurance cost are rising, pension funds are in trouble, and retirement investments become worthless when a company goes bankrupt. On the other hand, the professor states that this theory is unjustifiable because insurance costs of private business owners are even higher. If your business falls, employees will take legal actions against you.

The reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate the positive aspects of running one’s own businesses, whereas the professor claims that this argument is unsubstantiated and provides his own persuading rebuttals to conclude that running one’s own businesses is not as easy as it sounds.

テンプレートでは対応できない部分あり。

bankrupt, bankrupt
travelling down a road filled with trouble
you may lose everything, even the proverbial shirt off your back. 自分のシャツまで失う
echelon 階層
having their ideas listened to and acted upon
to make sure his ideas see the light of day
a thing in the past
in times of need
----------------------------------------------------------------
18

The reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate that the orb web of spiders is more efficient than the cobweb. The professor, however, claims that this contention is uncorroborated and provides his own compelling rebuttals to conclude that the cob set is superior to the orb web.

The first reason provided by the reading passage is that orb webs are one-dimensional and made of fine strands. Insects can be easily trapped by the webs because they cannot see the web well. Conversely, the professor states that cob webs are three-dimensional and made of stronger and dense strands of irregular patters. Once ensnared, insects cannot escape the webs.

The second reason pointed out by the reading passage is that each spider can easily build a orb web in 30 to 45 minutes due to its one-dimensional structure. This makes it easy for spiders to make a new web every day. On the contrary, the professor states that orb webs are stronger and cannot be broken easily by wind or large insects. Due to their three-dimensional structure, when one section is broken, repairing that section is sufficient.

The third reason supplied by the reading passage is that being in the center of the orb webs, spiders can easily sense when prey gets caught. On the other hand, the professor states that this argument is questionable because being in the center of webs, spiders are vulnerable to predators. In contrast, spiders can hide themselves in the dense strands of cob webs and protect themselves from enemies.

The reading passage presents three reasons to corroborate that the orb web of spiders is more efficient than the cobweb, whereas the professor claims that this contention is unsubstantiated and provides his own persuading rebuttals to conclude that the cob set is superior to the orb web.

必ずしも反論してないところは、this argument is questionable becauseを使わない。
so it can ill afford to allow any prey to escape = it cannot afford to allow any prey to escape
獲物を逃がす余裕はない
ensnared insects わなにかかった昆虫
the strands are fine enough to be invisible even in bright light, let alone at night
ensnared クモに捕えられる
----------------------------------------------------------------
19
The reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate that chimps can communicate with humans. However, the professor claims that this contention is uncorroborated and provides his own compelling rebuttals to conclude that the capacity of chimp’s communication is rather limited.

The first reason provided by the reading passage is that Lana was able to use 125 symbols on a key board and express her thoughts by pressing a series of keys. Conversely, the professor states that this argument is illogical because Lana was rather conditioned to endless repletion of same symbols.

The second reason given by the reading passage is that Lana was able to distinguish between nouns and adjectives. For example, she used the term finger and bracelet to define a ring. On the contrary, the professor states that this contention is groundless. Although she understood some basic grammar, but could not create new sentences on her own unless presented by the research team.

The third reason supplied by the reading passage is that Lana was able to answer questions from researchers, using the key board. On the other hand, the professor states that this theory is unjustifiable because those questions and answers were not in speech form but rather passive way using the key board. She could not produce her own questions and she could not communicate with other chimps, unlike human children can perform those tasks.

The reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate that chimps can communicate with humans, whereas the professor claims that this contention is unsubstantiated and provides his own persuading rebuttals to conclude that the capacity of chimp’s communication is rather limited and they cannot communicate with humans.

the most celebrated case
Or so it appeared. It appeared so.
This is much unlike human children.
少し難しい
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20

The reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate that fish farming practices pose dangers to fish and humans. However, the professor states that this argument is uncorroborated and provides his own compelling rebuttals to conclude that fish farming is safe practices for both fish and humans.

The first reason presented by the reading passage is that as fish is confined to narrow pens, the likelihood of diseases is higher than natural environments and diseases may spread faster. Consumers also are infected by diseases by eating unwittingly infected fish. Conversely, the professor maintains that this contention is groundless because fish in natural ocean environments are also flocked together. In addition, the professor states that fish farming raises some fish that are not available in the wild.

The second reason provided by the reading passage is that fish farmers utilize chemicals to facilitate the rapid growth of fish in captivity. These chemicals may be harmful to consumers. On the contrary, the professor maintains that this claim is doubtful because chemicals are also used to raise cows and pigs. Eating fish containing less fat and healthy oils is safer than eating beef and pork having more fat. In addition, the professor states that fish in the wild is also contaminated by pollution.

The third reason given by the reading passage is that a large number of fish is caught to feed fish in captivity. This negatively affects the ocean eco systems. On the other hand, the professor maintains that this theory is questionable because Most of these fish used for raising fish farming are not the ones humans and other sea creatures eat.

The reading passage presents three reasons to substantiate that fish farming practices pose dangers to fish and humans, whereas the professor states that this argument is unsubstantiated and provides his own persuading rebuttals to conclude that fish farming is safe practices for both fish and humans.
-----------------------------------------------
21

The reading passage presents three reasons to corroborate that it is humans who are responsible for disappearance and eradication of birds. However, the professor states that this argument is unsubstantiated and provides her own compelling rebuttals to conclude that humans are not causing the disappearance and eradication of birds.

The first reason provided by the reading passage is that expanding urban areas with less green environments and more pollution are removing their habitats. Conversely, the professor claims that this argument is illogical because more green areas such as tree-lined rivers and parks are available in urban cities, supporting a large population of birds. For example, Berlin is filled with a large number of trees.


The second reason identified by the reading passage is that a large area of forest has been converted to farm lands to support higher demand of humans, which in turn deprived birds of their territories. On the contrary, the professor claims that this assertion is questionable because the earth retains a vast amount of remaining forests in Canada, Brazil and south East Asia. In addition, farming practices becoming more efficient, less and less farming area is required.

The third reason proposed by the reading passage is that insecticides are killing many birds. On the other hand, the professor claims that this theory is unjustifiable because some plants have been genetically modified to increase resistance to insects. Outside the U.S., DDT is still used to kill mosquitos to deter the spread of Malaria. This means limited number of birds would be killed by DDT, while this can save lives of humans.

The reading passage presents three human reasons to substantiate that it is humans who are responsible for disappearance and eradication of birds, whereas the professor states that this claim is uncorroborated and provides her own persuading rebuttals to conclude that humans are not causing the disappearance and eradication of birds.
-----------------------------------
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
注意:上記の作文は私の長い勉強過程の一時期に書いたもので、使われているテンプレート、書き方などは現在使っているものと大きく違いますのでご注意ください。 勉強会でご紹介したものが現在のテンプレート、書き方です。

[タグ未指定]
[ 2013/05/08 09:58 ] TOEFL学習記録 | TB(-) | CM(0)
コメントの投稿












管理者にだけ表示を許可する
プロフィール

Andy

Author:Andy
プロフィール:

TOEIC 990点
英検1級合格二次試験100点(優秀賞)
TOEFL iBT 119点

名前:Andy
年齢:59歳
学歴:University of Missouri at Rolla 工学部原子力工学科卒業
職業:技術系の通訳を30年以上やっています。

仕事柄、欧米人と仕事をすることが多く、Andyというニックネームを使っています。
北陸の田舎に住んでいます。毎週、北陸新幹線にお世話になっています。
コシヒカリを食べて育った純粋な日本人です。アメリカ人、ハーフではありません。
韓国語、中国語は全くできません。

毎月TOEFLを受験しています。
ソラシティ、武蔵小杉、テンプル大学麻布校3階が好きな会場です。

最新トラックバック
カレンダー
09 | 2017/10 | 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31 - - - -
FC2カウンター
アクセスランキング
[ジャンルランキング]
未設定
--位
アクセスランキングを見る>>

[サブジャンルランキング]
未設定
--位
アクセスランキングを見る>>
天気予報

-天気予報コム- -FC2-
ブロとも一覧