威威老師的 TOEFL Writing 寫作完全攻略 ✍️🎓
課程導航
哈囉各位同學！我是威威老師。
來，先給你好消息：
TOEFL 寫作 2023 年 7 月改版了！ 變得更短、更快速——不需要寫 300+ 字了！
新格式：
- Task 1（整合寫作）：150-225 字 / 20 分鐘
- Task 2（學術討論）：100+ 字 / 10 分鐘
🚨 威威鐵律： TOEFL 寫作最大特色：
- 整合寫作 = 反駁分析——聽力永遠反駁閱讀！
- 學術討論 = 短時間爆發——10 分鐘 100 字必須直接命中
- 兩題都有強「模板感」——掌握結構就能穩定拿分
今天威威老師帶你拆解：
- 🎯 Task 1 整合寫作 SOP——讀（3 min）+ 聽（2 min）+ 寫（20 min）
- 🔥 聽力 vs 閱讀的「反駁公式」——一定要寫出來
- 📋 Task 2 學術討論模板——10 分鐘 100 字
- ⚡ 筆記法 + 評分標準
繫好安全帶 🚂
一、測驗基本資訊
| 項目 | 內容 |
|---|---|
| 時間 | 約 29 分鐘 |
| 題數 | 2 題 |
| Task 1 | 整合寫作（Integrated Writing）：讀+聽→寫，20 分鐘 |
| Task 2 | 學術討論寫作（Writing for an Academic Discussion）：讀討論+寫貢獻，10 分鐘 |
| 評分重點 | 內容準確性、組織結構、語言使用、文法正確性 |
| 字數建議 | Task 1: 150-225 字 / Task 2: 至少 100 字 |
💡 威威白話： 兩題雖然短，但結構非常重要——少寫一段就掉一級分！
二、Task 1：整合寫作 (Integrated Writing)
題型流程
| 步驟 | 時間 | 做什麼 |
|---|---|---|
| 1. 閱讀 | 3 min | 讀一篇學術短文（約 250-300 字），提出一個觀點 + 3 個支持理由 |
| 2. 聽力 | ~2 min | 聽教授講座，對閱讀的觀點反駁（相反觀點 + 3 個理由） |
| 3. 寫作 | 20 min | 寫一篇短文摘要聽力如何反駁閱讀 |
🚨 威威核心鐵律：聽力一定反駁閱讀！
不是補充、不是延伸——就是反駁。
閱讀說 A 是對的，聽力就說 A 是錯的——所以你寫作的核心任務：
- 「聽力說閱讀的論點 1 不對，因為…」
- 「聽力說閱讀的論點 2 不對，因為…」
- 「聽力說閱讀的論點 3 不對，因為…」
閱讀時的筆記模板（3 分鐘）
在你面前擺好筆記紙，這樣切：
READING (3 min)
Main claim: ____________________________
R1: ____________________________
- supporting detail: _________
R2: ____________________________
- supporting detail: _________
R3: ____________________________
- supporting detail: _________
聽力時的筆記模板
聽力時，你的筆記紙右半邊這樣用：
LISTENING
Counter-claim: ________________________
(disagrees with reading)
L1: ____________________________
(counter R1)
- detail: _________
L2: ____________________________
(counter R2)
- detail: _________
L3: ____________________________
(counter R3)
- detail: _________
寫作模板（完整）
[INTRODUCTION — 1 句]
The reading and the lecture discuss [topic]. The author of the reading argues that [reading's main claim with 3 points], while the lecturer challenges this position, providing counterarguments for each point.
[BODY PARAGRAPH 1 — 對應閱讀論點 1]
First, the reading claims that [reading point 1]. However, the professor refutes this by stating that [lecture's counterargument 1]. Specifically, [detail from lecture].
[BODY PARAGRAPH 2 — 對應閱讀論點 2]
Second, according to the passage, [reading point 2]. The lecturer disagrees, explaining that [lecture's counterargument 2]. In addition, [detail from lecture].
[BODY PARAGRAPH 3 — 對應閱讀論點 3]
Third, the reading suggests that [reading point 3]. In contrast, the professor argues that [lecture's counterargument 3]. To elaborate, [detail from lecture].
[CONCLUSION — 1 句, optional but helpful]
In summary, the lecturer effectively challenges each of the arguments presented in the reading passage by providing specific evidence and alternative explanations.
萬用句型庫 (Task 1)
| 功能 | 句型 |
|---|---|
| 介紹閱讀論點 | ”The reading passage argues/claims/suggests/contends that…" |
| "According to the author of the passage, …” | |
| 介紹聽力反駁 | ”The lecturer, however, challenges/disputes/casts doubt on this view." |
| "The professor refutes this argument, pointing out that…” | |
| 對比轉折 | ”This directly contradicts the reading’s claim that…" |
| "In contrast to the reading, the lecturer states that…" | |
| "While the passage suggests X, the professor argues Y.” | |
| 補充聽力細節 | ”To elaborate, the professor explains that…" |
| "Specifically, the lecturer notes that…" | |
| "The professor supports this by mentioning that…” | |
| 總結 | ”Overall, the lecturer effectively undermines each point made in the reading.” |
換句話說 (Paraphrasing) 技巧
絕對不要做的事：
- 直接複製貼上閱讀文章的原句。ETS 的電腦會偵測，如果你大量抄襲閱讀內容，Task 1 會得低分。
應該做的事：
| 技巧 | 原文來自 Reading | 改寫後 |
|---|---|---|
| 同義詞替換 | ”The Roman Empire collapsed due to economic problems." | "Financial difficulties contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire.” |
| 改變詞性 | ”The policy was successful." | "The policy achieved success.” |
| 改變語態 | ”Workers built the canal in five years." | "The canal was constructed by workers in five years.” |
| 改變句子結構 | ”Because of the drought, crops failed." | "Crop failure resulted from the drought.” |
| 合併句子 | ”Dinosaurs went extinct. An asteroid hit Earth." | "The extinction of the dinosaurs was triggered by an asteroid impact.” |
計分時間分配（20 分鐘）
| 時間 | 做什麼 |
|---|---|
| 0-2 分鐘 | 整理筆記、確認 3 組對應關係 |
| 2-5 分鐘 | 寫 Introduction |
| 5-14 分鐘 | 寫 3 個 Body Paragraphs (每段約 3 分鐘) |
| 14-18 分鐘 | 寫 Conclusion (optional) + 檢查內容 |
| 18-20 分鐘 | 檢查文法（時態、冠詞、主謂一致） |
二、Task 1 完整練習（三回）
Practice Set 1: Four-Day Work Week
Reading Passage (3 minutes):
The idea of transitioning to a four-day work week has gained significant attention in recent years, with proponents arguing that it would bring substantial benefits to both employees and companies. There are three main arguments in favor of this model.
First, a shorter work week would increase employee productivity. Research suggests that when workers have more time to rest and recharge, they return to work more focused and energized. Countries with shorter average work weeks, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, consistently report higher productivity per hour worked than countries with longer hours, such as Japan and the United States.
Second, a four-day work week would improve employees’ mental and physical health. Longer weekends would provide more time for exercise, family interaction, and hobbies — activities that reduce stress and increase life satisfaction. Studies have linked overwork to higher rates of depression, anxiety, and heart disease, all of which could be reduced with an extra day off each week.
Third, companies would benefit financially from this arrangement. With employees working one fewer day per week, companies would see significant reductions in operational costs such as electricity, heating, and office supplies. Additionally, healthier and happier employees mean lower healthcare costs and reduced employee turnover, which saves companies the considerable expense of recruiting and training replacements.
Listening Script:
(Professor): So, while the idea of a four-day work week sounds appealing, there are actually significant problems with each of the arguments made in favor of it.
First, the claim about increased productivity is, at best, misleading. Yes, countries like Denmark have high productivity per hour, but that doesn’t mean reducing hours caused the high productivity — that’s confusing correlation with causation. In reality, many companies that have experimented with four-day weeks found that the same amount of work still needed to be done, except now it had to be squeezed into four days. What this actually meant in practice was that employees worked much longer days — often ten or eleven hours — to complete their tasks. So instead of being more productive per hour, many workers were simply more exhausted at the end of each day. The supposed productivity gain is really just work compression, not genuine efficiency improvement.
Second, the argument that a four-day week would improve mental health ignores a critical issue: income. For hourly workers in industries like retail, hospitality, and manufacturing, working fewer days means working fewer hours, which directly translates to lower pay. These are already lower-income workers who can least afford a pay cut. While the reading focuses on salaried office workers who would keep the same pay, this simply doesn’t apply to the millions of hourly workers who would see their income reduced by 20%. For these workers, the financial stress of reduced income would likely outweigh any mental health benefits of an extra day off.
Third, the supposed financial benefits for companies are completely overstated. The operational cost savings — electricity, heating, supplies — are relatively minor, especially since the office building still needs to be maintained and secured even when fewer people are there. Meanwhile, many companies that have adopted four-day weeks face new costs. For instance, customer service-oriented businesses still need coverage five or even seven days a week, so they end up hiring additional part-time workers to fill the gaps, creating new payroll expenses and scheduling complexity. The small savings on utilities are more than offset by these new staffing costs.
Model Essay:
The reading and the lecture discuss the potential transition to a four-day work week. The author of the passage argues that this change would boost productivity, improve employee health, and benefit companies financially, while the lecturer challenges each of these claims with counterarguments.
First, the reading asserts that a shorter work week would increase productivity because workers would be more rested and focused. However, the professor disputes this, pointing out that the correlation between shorter hours and higher productivity in countries like Denmark does not prove causation. In reality, she explains, companies that tried four-day weeks found that employees had to work much longer days — often ten or eleven hours — to complete the same amount of work, leading to greater exhaustion rather than genuine productivity improvements. The result was work compression, not true efficiency gains.
Second, according to the passage, a four-day week would improve mental and physical health by providing more time for rest and personal activities. The lecturer refutes this argument by highlighting that it only applies to salaried workers. For hourly employees in sectors like retail and manufacturing, fewer working days would mean significantly lower pay — a 20% income reduction. She argues that the financial stress caused by this income loss would likely outweigh any mental health benefits, and that hourly workers, who are often already low-income, can least afford such a pay cut.
Third, the reading suggests that companies would save money through reduced operational costs and lower employee turnover. In contrast, the professor contends that these financial benefits are exaggerated. She explains that savings on electricity and supplies are minor, and that companies in customer service industries would actually face new costs because they need to maintain coverage throughout the week. Hiring additional part-time workers to fill gaps creates new payroll expenses that more than offset any minor utility savings.
In conclusion, the lecturer effectively undermines each of the arguments in the reading passage by pointing out flaws in the reasoning and presenting evidence that contradicts the original claims.
Practice Set 2: Prescribed Forest Fires
Reading Passage (3 minutes):
For decades, forest management policy in the United States emphasized total fire suppression. However, a growing number of ecologists now advocate for prescribed burns — deliberately set, carefully controlled fires — as a forest management tool. They offer three main reasons to support this practice.
First, prescribed burns reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires. In forests where natural fires have been suppressed for decades, dead leaves, branches, and undergrowth accumulate on the forest floor, creating enormous quantities of fuel. When a fire eventually starts, whether from lightning or human activity, this accumulated fuel causes fires that burn far hotter and spread much faster than natural fires would. Regular prescribed burns eliminate this excess fuel under controlled conditions, significantly reducing the danger of uncontrollable wildfires.
Second, prescribed burns benefit forest ecosystems. Many tree species, including several types of pine, actually require fire to reproduce. Their cones are sealed with resin that only melts at high temperatures, releasing the seeds inside. Additionally, fire clears out invasive plant species and returns nutrients to the soil in the form of ash, creating ideal conditions for native plants to thrive. Fire is a natural and essential part of the life cycle of many forest ecosystems.
Third, prescribed burns are economically beneficial. The cost of fighting a single major wildfire can run into hundreds of millions of dollars in firefighter salaries, equipment, and aircraft operations. Prescribed burns cost a fraction of that amount — typically a few hundred dollars per acre — and by preventing larger fires, they save taxpayers enormous sums in the long term.
Listening Script:
(Professor): So, prescribed burns have become quite popular in forestry circles, but when you look more carefully at the evidence, each of the arguments in favor of them has some serious weaknesses.
First, the claim that prescribed burns reduce wildfire risk is only partially true, and in some cases, they’ve made things worse. The problem is that prescribed burns are extremely difficult to control with 100% certainty. There are numerous documented cases of prescribed burns escaping their boundaries and becoming major wildfires themselves. In the year 2000, a prescribed burn at Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico escaped control and burned over 45,000 acres, destroying 400 homes in the nearby town of Los Alamos. This is not an isolated incident — according to Forest Service data, dozens of prescribed burns escape each year. Prescribing fire to prevent fire is, at best, a risky strategy.
Second, the ecological benefits are greatly oversimplified. While it’s true that some tree species benefit from fire, prescribed burns don’t perfectly replicate natural fire patterns. Natural fires occur at irregular intervals and burn with variable intensity, creating a diverse mosaic of burned and unburned areas. Prescribed burns, by contrast, are typically uniform in intensity and applied on a fixed schedule, which doesn’t create the same ecological diversity. Furthermore, prescribed burns can actually harm certain wildlife. Ground-nesting birds and small mammals may be killed directly by the fire, and the smoke from large-scale burns has been shown to cause respiratory problems in wildlife, just as it does in humans.
Third, the economic argument overlooks the hidden costs and liabilities. Yes, prescribed burns are cheaper per acre than fighting wildfires, but this calculation only includes the direct burning costs. It does not include the cost of the extensive environmental impact assessments, public notification procedures, and liability insurance that agencies must carry. In fact, when a prescribed burn escapes and causes property damage — as happened in Los Alamos — the resulting lawsuits and settlements can cost tens of millions of dollars. These liability costs completely destroy the supposed economic advantage. Additionally, prescribed burns produce smoke that affects air quality in nearby communities, leading to health-related costs and potential restrictions during certain weather conditions that further limit their applicability.
Model Essay:
The reading and the lecture address the practice of using prescribed burns for forest management. The author of the passage advocates for prescribed burns, arguing that they reduce wildfire risk, benefit ecosystems, and are economically advantageous. The lecturer, however, challenges each of these claims, pointing out significant weaknesses in the reasoning.
First, the reading contends that prescribed burns lower the risk of catastrophic wildfires by removing accumulated fuel. The professor counters this by highlighting that prescribed burns are very difficult to control with complete certainty, and that there are numerous cases of them escaping their boundaries. She provides the specific example of the Bandelier National Monument fire in New Mexico, where a prescribed burn escaped and destroyed over 45,000 acres and 400 homes. Dozens of such escapes occur annually, making the strategy of using fire to prevent fire inherently risky.
Second, according to the passage, prescribed burns support forest ecology by enabling seed release in fire-dependent species and clearing invasive plants. The lecturer refutes this, explaining that prescribed burns do not replicate natural fire patterns. Natural fires occur irregularly and create a diverse landscape of burned and unburned patches, while prescribed burns are uniform in intensity and timing, which reduces ecological diversity. She further points out that prescribed burns can directly harm animals such as ground-nesting birds and small mammals, and that smoke from these burns causes respiratory problems in wildlife.
Third, the reading suggests that prescribed burns are economically beneficial because they cost far less than fighting wildfires. In contrast, the professor argues that this calculation is incomplete. She explains that the true cost must include environmental assessments, public notification, and liability insurance. When prescribed burns escape and cause property damage, as in the Los Alamos case, lawsuits and settlements can cost tens of millions of dollars, which completely eliminates any economic advantage. Smoke-related air quality issues in nearby communities also produce hidden health costs.
Overall, the lecturer effectively challenges the three arguments in the reading, exposing their practical, ecological, and economic flaws.
Practice Set 3: Space-Based Solar Power
Reading Passage (3 minutes):
Space-based solar power has been proposed as a revolutionary solution to the world’s growing energy needs. The concept involves placing enormous solar panels in orbit around Earth, where they would collect solar energy and transmit it wirelessly to receiving stations on the ground. Proponents identify three major advantages of this approach.
First, space-based solar panels could collect energy continuously, unlike ground-based solar panels. In orbit, there is no night, no clouds, and no atmosphere to block or scatter sunlight. Satellites in geostationary orbit would be exposed to sunlight virtually 24 hours a day, allowing them to generate power at full capacity almost constantly. This would solve the fundamental problem that limits terrestrial solar power — intermittency.
Second, space-based solar power could deliver energy to any location on Earth. The receiving stations on the ground, known as rectennas, would be relatively compact and could be built anywhere with a clear view of the sky. This means remote communities, disaster-stricken areas, and military operations far from conventional power infrastructure could all receive reliable electricity without needing to build expensive transmission lines or transport fuel.
Third, space-based solar power would produce enormous quantities of clean energy with minimal environmental impact. Once operational, the system would generate no greenhouse gas emissions, no radioactive waste, and would require far less land area on Earth than equivalent ground-based solar farms. In an era of climate crisis, this technology represents a potentially unlimited source of carbon-free electricity.
Listening Script:
(Professor): While space-based solar power sounds like science fiction made real, the actual practical challenges are so severe that it remains firmly in the realm of fantasy, at least for the foreseeable future. Let me address each of the points from the reading.
First, the 24-hour sunlight advantage in space is real, but the problem comes when you try to get that power back to Earth. Energy transmission from orbit requires converting electricity into microwaves or lasers, beaming them through the atmosphere, and converting them back to electricity on the ground. Each conversion step has significant efficiency losses — current technology loses over half the energy in this process. When you combine conversion losses with the fact that solar panels slowly degrade in the harsh space environment due to radiation and micrometeoroid impacts, the actual usable energy reaching the ground is far less than the reading implies. What starts as unlimited solar energy in space becomes a trickle by the time it reaches the power grid.
Second, the idea of beaming power anywhere needs some serious safety scrutiny. The microwave beams from these satellites would be intense enough to transmit useful amounts of power — we are talking about beams powerful enough to transfer megawatts of energy. If the beam’s targeting system malfunctioned, even briefly, this concentrated microwave energy could drift into populated areas, aircraft flight paths, or sensitive ecosystems. The potential for accidents is not trivial. Furthermore, the international regulatory framework for operating such powerful transmitters in orbit simply does not exist. Who would be responsible for an accident that crosses national borders? These are not minor regulatory details — they are fundamental obstacles that have blocked space solar power for over fifty years.
Third, the environmental benefit argument collapses when you consider the launch requirements. Building a single operational solar power satellite would require components totaling thousands of tons — vastly heavier than anything ever launched into space. This means hundreds or even thousands of rocket launches. Each heavy-lift rocket launch burns enormous quantities of fossil fuel and releases carbon emissions and other pollutants directly into the upper atmosphere, where their effects are actually more harmful than at ground level. Some calculations suggest that the carbon footprint of launching a complete solar power satellite system would take decades of clean operation just to break even, before generating any net environmental benefit.
Model Essay:
The reading and the lecture discuss the feasibility of space-based solar power as a solution to global energy needs. The author of the passage advocates for this technology, citing continuous energy collection, global delivery capability, and environmental benefits. The lecturer, however, systematically refutes each of these points, highlighting practical barriers that make the concept unrealistic.
First, the reading argues that space-based solar panels could collect sunlight continuously without the interruptions of night or weather. The professor counters this by noting that the real problem lies in transmitting the energy back to Earth. The process requires converting electricity to microwaves or lasers and then back again, with each conversion step losing substantial energy — current technology loses more than half the energy in transmission. Additionally, solar panels in space degrade due to radiation and micrometeoroid impacts, further reducing output. Consequently, the actual usable energy reaching the ground is far less than the reading suggests.
Second, according to the passage, energy could be delivered to any location on Earth through relatively compact ground stations. The lecturer refutes this by raising serious safety concerns. The microwave beams required to transmit megawatts of power would be extremely intense, and any targeting malfunction could cause these beams to drift into populated areas or aircraft paths. He also points out that no international regulatory framework exists for operating such powerful orbital transmitters, and questions of liability for cross-border accidents remain unresolved — fundamental obstacles that have blocked this technology for over fifty years.
Third, the reading suggests space-based solar power would produce clean energy with minimal environmental impact. In contrast, the professor argues that this ignores the enormous environmental cost of launching the system into orbit. A single operational satellite would require thousands of tons of components, necessitating hundreds or thousands of heavy rocket launches. Each launch burns massive amounts of fossil fuel and releases pollutants into the upper atmosphere, where their effects are amplified. He notes that some calculations indicate it would take decades of clean operation just to offset the carbon emissions from the launches themselves.
In conclusion, the lecturer presents substantial evidence that the practical, safety, and environmental challenges of space-based solar power far outweigh its theoretical advantages.
三、Task 2：學術討論寫作 (Writing for an Academic Discussion)
題型格式
| 步驟 | 時間 | 內容 |
|---|---|---|
| 閱讀 | 1-2 分鐘 | 看到一個教授丟出的討論問題 + 2 個學生已經回應 |
| 寫作 | 10 分鐘 | 寫 100+ words 的你的貢獻 |
題型長這樣：
Professor: In our discussion of economic policy, we’ve been examining different approaches to reducing income inequality. One proposal that has gained traction is universal basic income, or UBI — a system where the government provides a regular, unconditional cash payment to every citizen. Do you think UBI would be an effective way to reduce poverty and inequality? Why or why not?
Sofia: I think UBI could be effective because it gives people a financial safety net. When people aren’t constantly worried about survival, they’re more likely to invest in their own education, start small businesses, or take career risks. In the long run, this could reduce poverty.
Marcus: I disagree. If the government just gives everyone money regardless of whether they work, many people would stop working entirely. This would reduce tax revenue and economic productivity, potentially making poverty worse, not better.
分析討論的四步驟（讀完後用 1-2 分鐘）
- 找出教授的提問焦點：教授到底在問什麼？這決定了你的 reply 主題不能跑掉。
- 總結兩個學生的立場：Sofia 說什麼？Marcus 說什麼？
- 決定你的策略：你同意誰？不同意誰？有什麼新的角度？
- 想出 1-2 個你自己的論點：不要只重複學生說過的，要有新東西。
四大策略 + 模板
策略 A：同意並擴展 (Agree and Extend)
當你同意某位學生的觀點，但你有更好的例子或更深的論點。
I strongly agree with [Student A]'s point that [summarize their view].
I'd like to add that [your additional point or new angle].
[Your explanation and example — 3-5 sentences]
That's why I believe [restate position in context of the discussion].
策略 B：部分同意 (Partially Agree)
當你覺得兩方都有道理，但都不完全對。
I see merit in both perspectives. While [Student A] is right that [their valid point],
I also recognize [Student B]'s concern about [their valid concern].
My own view is that [synthesize a more nuanced position].
For instance, [example showing how both sides can be reconciled].
So overall, I believe the issue is more nuanced than either side suggests.
策略 C：不同意並提供新觀點 (Disagree and Offer New Perspective)
當你不同意兩位學生的論點，要給出一個新的角度。
Respectfully, I see this issue differently than both Sofia and Marcus.
While [Student A] makes a valid point about [concede minor point],
I believe the more important consideration is [your core argument].
[Explanation + example — 3-5 sentences]
For this reason, I would argue that [your conclusion].
策略 D：提出被忽略的層面 (Introduce a Missing Dimension)
當你覺得討論忽略了某個重要問題。
Both previous responses raise interesting points, but I believe
there's an important dimension that hasn't been addressed yet: [your new angle].
Specifically, [elaborate on the missing dimension].
A good example of this is [example].
Considering this additional perspective, I would argue that [your position].
萬用句型庫 (Task 2)
| 功能 | 句型 |
|---|---|
| 同意引述 | ”I agree with [Student]‘s observation that…" |
| "Building on [Student]‘s point, I would add…" | |
| "[Student] makes a compelling argument, and I’d like to expand on it by…” | |
| 不同意 | ”I respectfully disagree with [Student]‘s claim that…" |
| "While I understand [Student]‘s perspective, I see the situation differently." | |
| "I would challenge the assumption that…” | |
| 自己給論點 | ”From my perspective, the key factor is…" |
| "Another important angle to consider is…" | |
| "What hasn’t been mentioned yet is…” | |
| 舉例 | ”For example, in my own experience…" |
| "A case in point is…" | |
| "This can be illustrated by…” | |
| 總結 | ”In short, I believe that…" |
| "Ultimately, this suggests that…” |
四、Task 2 十大主題 + 示範回答
Topic 1: Social Media and Mental Health
Discussion:
Professor: Social media platforms have become central to how we communicate, but concerns about their impact on mental health continue to grow. Do you believe social media has done more harm than good for young people’s psychological well-being? Why or why not?
Keiko: I think social media has been largely harmful. The constant comparisons with idealized versions of other people’s lives create anxiety and depression, and cyberbullying has become a serious problem that follows young people home from school.
James: I disagree. Social media has connected young people in ways that were never possible before. It’s created communities for people with niche interests, allows marginalized youth to find peer support, and has been a powerful tool for social movements led by young people.
Model Response (130 words):
I think both Keiko and James raise valid points, but I believe the reality is more nuanced — the impact of social media depends heavily on how it’s used.
Keiko is absolutely right about the comparison problem. When young people passively scroll through carefully curated highlight reels of others’ lives, it can indeed fuel anxiety and feelings of inadequacy. Research consistently links passive social media consumption to lower self-esteem among teenagers.
However, James’s point about community building is equally important. I would add that the distinction between passive consumption and active connection is key. When young people use social media to genuinely engage — joining supportive communities, collaborating on creative projects, or organizing around causes they care about — the psychological effects can be positive.
So rather than asking whether social media is inherently good or bad, I think we should be teaching young people to use these platforms intentionally and critically, not passively.
Topic 2: Remote Work
Discussion:
Professor: The pandemic forced a massive shift toward remote work, and many companies are now deciding whether to maintain remote policies, return to the office, or adopt hybrid models. From an employee’s perspective, what do you think is the ideal work arrangement, and why?
Ana: I believe full-time remote work is ideal. It eliminates commuting time, allows for better work-life balance, and lets people live wherever they want rather than being tied to expensive urban centers.
David: I disagree. In-person work is essential for building team culture, spontaneous collaboration, and mentoring younger employees. Fully remote workers miss out on these organic interactions that drive innovation and career growth.
Model Response (135 words):
I find myself agreeing most with a position neither Ana nor David has fully articulated: the hybrid model offers the best of both worlds.
Ana is right that remote work provides flexibility, and for deep, focused individual work, it is often superior to an open-plan office full of interruptions. The elimination of commuting alone reclaims hundreds of hours per year that significantly improve quality of life.
However, David’s concerns about culture and mentoring are legitimate. What I would argue is that these don’t require being in the office five days a week. A well-designed hybrid model — perhaps two or three days in the office — reserves in-person time explicitly for collaboration, team-building, and mentorship, while leaving remote days for focused individual tasks.
The key is intentionality: treating office time as a resource to be optimized, not a default. This balances flexibility with the real benefits of face-to-face interaction.
Topic 3: Artificial Intelligence in Education
Discussion:
Professor: Artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Some educators see AI as a powerful learning aid, while others worry it will undermine students’ motivation to actually learn. How do you think schools should respond to the rise of AI?
Yuki: AI should be banned in schools. If students can just ask AI to write their essays or solve their math problems, they’ll never develop their own critical thinking or writing skills.
Carlos: I disagree. AI is going to be part of the professional world these students will enter. Banning it is like banning calculators in math class — it prevents students from learning how to use an essential tool effectively.
Model Response (140 words):
I agree with Carlos that banning AI is neither practical nor forward-thinking, but I think Yuki’s concerns deserve more serious engagement than a simple “adapt or fall behind” argument.
The calculator analogy Carlos uses is instructive. When calculators became widespread, math education didn’t disappear — it evolved. Students still learn arithmetic fundamentals, but they are then taught to use calculators for complex calculations while focusing on higher-order skills like problem setup and interpretation of results.
I believe schools should take the same approach with AI. Rather than banning it outright or embracing it uncritically, schools should redesign assessments so that they evaluate skills AI cannot replicate: original analysis, synthesis of multiple sources, ethical reasoning, and creative problem framing. Students should learn to use AI as a research assistant or brainstorming partner, while developing their own judgment about when AI output is reliable and when it isn’t.
The goal isn’t to compete with AI, but to teach the uniquely human skills that complement it.
Topic 4: Climate Change and Individual Action
Discussion:
Professor: Discussions about climate change often focus on large-scale policy changes, but there is also debate about the role of individual actions like reducing meat consumption, flying less, or buying fewer consumer goods. Do you believe that individual lifestyle changes matter in addressing climate change, or is this focus on individuals a distraction from the systemic changes we need?
Amara: Individual actions are mostly a distraction. The vast majority of emissions come from a relatively small number of corporations and industrial processes. Making people feel guilty about their personal choices shifts responsibility away from the entities that can actually make a difference.
Hiro: I think individual actions matter because they create cultural momentum for systemic change. When enough people change their behavior, it sends a market signal and creates political pressure for governments and corporations to act.
Model Response (145 words):
I think both Amara and Hiro are partly right, but they are answering slightly different questions. Amara is focused on emissions impact, while Hiro is focused on social change.
On the emissions question, Amara has a point. Even if every individual reduced their carbon footprint, the effect would be insufficient without structural changes to energy systems, transportation infrastructure, and industrial regulations. Individual action alone cannot decarbonize the economy.
However, I believe Hiro’s framework is more strategically useful. Individual action is not primarily about carbon molecules — it is about cultural signaling. When people install solar panels, switch to plant-based diets, or choose trains over flights, these choices normalize low-carbon lifestyles and create demand that drives business innovation and policy shifts. Consider how the rapid growth of electric vehicle adoption by individual consumers has pushed every major automaker to accelerate their EV transition.
So individual action and systemic change are not opposing forces — they are mutually reinforcing. The real question is how to channel individual energy into political and economic pressure.
Topic 5: Universal Healthcare
Discussion:
Professor: Many developed nations provide universal healthcare funded through taxation, while others rely primarily on private insurance systems. What do you see as the most important consideration in this debate — cost, quality of care, personal freedom, or something else?
Ingrid: The most important consideration is cost and accessibility. In countries without universal healthcare, millions of people avoid seeing doctors because they cannot afford it, which leads to worse health outcomes and higher costs for everyone in the long run.
Leo: I think personal freedom matters most. People should be able to choose their own healthcare plans and providers, not have the government make these decisions. Competition in the private market also drives innovation that benefits everyone.
Model Response (128 words):
I agree with Ingrid that accessibility should be the primary consideration, but I would frame the argument differently by introducing a concept that neither student mentioned: health as a public good.
When people cannot access healthcare, the consequences don’t just affect those individuals — they affect everyone. Infectious diseases spread more easily in populations without regular medical care. Emergency rooms become overcrowded with conditions that could have been treated cheaply and early. Workers who are sick but can’t afford treatment become less productive, hurting the entire economy.
To address Leo’s freedom concern, I’d note that universal systems like those in Germany and Switzerland preserve choice by allowing private insurance alongside a public baseline. Freedom and universality are not mutually exclusive.
Ultimately, I believe healthcare should be treated like education — something a society provides to everyone because the collective benefit outweighs the cost.
Topic 6: College Admissions
Discussion:
Professor: University admissions have traditionally relied heavily on standardized test scores like the SAT, but a growing number of institutions are adopting test-optional policies. Do you believe standardized tests are a fair and useful part of college admissions, or should they be eliminated?
Priya: Tests should be eliminated because they favor wealthy students who can afford expensive test preparation. They measure socioeconomic status more than academic potential.
Ethan: I disagree. Standardized tests provide an objective measure that balances out the subjectivity of grades, which vary enormously between schools. They are the one common yardstick for comparing students from very different educational backgrounds.
Model Response (132 words):
I find that both Priya and Ethan are oversimplifying a complex issue. The real problem isn’t whether we keep or eliminate tests — it’s that we’re asking tests to do something they were never designed to do.
Priya is correct that test scores correlate with family income, and eliminating tests entirely might seem like a solution. However, Ethan makes the equally valid point that without any standardized metric, admissions become even more subjective — and subjective evaluations tend to favor the same privileged students that Priya is worried about.
I believe the better approach is to use test scores in context rather than as a standalone metric. A strong score from a student who attended an under-resourced school and worked a part-time job tells a very different story than the same score from a student who had private tutoring since middle school.
Tests should be one data point among many — considered alongside the opportunities and obstacles each student has faced.
Topic 7: Government Surveillance
Discussion:
Professor: In response to crime and terrorism, many governments have expanded surveillance programs, including facial recognition cameras in public spaces and monitoring of online communications. Do you think increased surveillance is a necessary trade-off for public safety, or does it pose an unacceptable threat to privacy?
Mei: Surveillance is a necessary tool. When cameras capture crimes or terrorist plots before they happen, innocent lives are saved. The majority of citizens have nothing to hide.
Omar: I strongly disagree. Mass surveillance treats everyone as a suspect and creates a chilling effect on free speech and political dissent. History shows that surveillance powers, once granted, are almost never rolled back.
Model Response (135 words):
I believe Omar’s historical perspective is the more compelling one, and I would strengthen his argument with a point about how surveillance actually functions in practice.
Mei’s “nothing to hide” argument is common but misleading. Privacy is not about hiding wrongdoing — it is about maintaining the space to think, speak, and associate freely without the psychological weight of being watched. Research on the “chilling effect” shows that even the perception of surveillance changes behavior: people self-censor, avoid controversial topics, and refrain from political participation.
Furthermore, I would add a practical dimension: the effectiveness of mass surveillance in preventing crime is actually poorly supported by evidence. Independent reviews of surveillance programs in multiple countries have struggled to demonstrate that bulk data collection prevents attacks that targeted investigation would not have caught.
The debate should not be “safety versus privacy” but rather what approach actually delivers safety without sacrificing the open society we’re trying to protect.
Topic 8: Space Exploration
Discussion:
Professor: Space agencies and private companies are investing billions of dollars in missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. Critics argue these resources would be better spent solving problems on Earth like poverty, disease, and climate change. Do you believe space exploration is worth the investment?
Tanya: Space exploration is absolutely worth it. The technological innovations developed for space missions — from satellite communications to water purification systems — end up benefiting everyday life on Earth. The return on investment is massive.
Raj: I disagree completely. We have children going hungry and hospitals without adequate supplies. Spending billions to put robots on Mars while these basic human needs go unmet is morally indefensible.
Model Response (138 words):
I think both Tanya and Raj frame the issue as a false choice. The government budgets for space exploration and social programs are not drawn from the same fixed pie — and framing them as competitors for funding obscures more relevant questions.
Tanya is right that space technology has produced remarkable spin-off benefits, but she understates the less visible value of fundamental research. Basic science — whether in space, particle physics, or biology — generates knowledge whose applications cannot be predicted in advance. The discovery of the structure of DNA had no immediate practical use, yet it eventually transformed medicine.
However, I also understand Raj’s frustration. The issue is not whether we fund space exploration but the scale and priorities. A space program that pursues scientific discovery and inspires young people to study science and engineering is worth funding. A space program that primarily serves billionaires’ vanity projects is not.
The right question is not “space exploration or social programs” but rather what kind of space program serves the public interest.
Topic 9: Free College Education
Discussion:
Professor: Some countries, including Germany and Norway, offer free university education to all students, funded by taxpayers. Others, like the United States, charge substantial tuition fees. Do you believe higher education should be free for everyone?
Lena: University should be free because education is a fundamental right, not a privilege for the wealthy. Countries with free education have more equal societies where talent, not family wealth, determines opportunity.
Ahmed: Free education sounds nice in theory, but someone has to pay for it. Countries with free tuition often have much higher tax rates, and their university systems tend to be overcrowded and underfunded.
Model Response (130 words):
I largely agree with Lena, but I think Ahmed raises practical concerns that free-tuition advocates need to address more seriously. The key is distinguishing between the principle and the implementation.
On principle, I believe higher education is increasingly a prerequisite for economic participation, making it closer to K-12 education than to an optional luxury. When education creates a more productive workforce, higher lifetime tax contributions, and lower reliance on social services, the public investment often pays for itself.
However, Ahmed is right that “free” does not mean “costless.” What I would propose, based on successful models like Australia’s income-contingent loan system, is that students should not pay upfront, but graduates who benefit financially from their education contribute back through a percentage of their income above a certain threshold. This balances accessibility with sustainability.
The goal should be removing financial barriers to enrollment, not subsidizing education for those who would pay regardless.
Topic 10: The Value of Art and Humanities
Discussion:
Professor: In many countries, funding and enrollment in the humanities — subjects like philosophy, literature, and history — are declining as students gravitate toward STEM fields with clearer career paths. Do you believe studying the humanities still has value in today’s economy, or are these subjects becoming obsolete?
Jun: Humanities are becoming obsolete. The job market clearly rewards technical skills, and students need to be realistic about their career prospects. Majoring in philosophy is a luxury most students cannot afford.
Clara: I think this is shortsighted. Humanities teach critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and the ability to understand complex human situations — skills that are essential even in technology companies. Many tech CEOs studied philosophy or literature.
Model Response (140 words):
I agree strongly with Clara, but I want to make a more structural argument that neither student has addressed: the humanities train the very cognitive capacities that the AI era demands.
Jun is correct that the immediate job market rewards technical skills, but this reflects what is measurable in the short term, not what creates value in the long term. The skills that have historically been most resilient to automation are precisely those cultivated by humanities education: interpreting ambiguous information, constructing persuasive arguments, understanding cultural context, and making ethical judgments under uncertainty.
Consider the most consequential failures in the tech industry over the past decade — from social media’s impact on democracy to algorithmic bias in hiring. These were not engineering failures; they were failures of ethical imagination and historical understanding. The companies facing these crises are now hiring ethicists, anthropologists, and policy researchers.
A narrow focus on immediate employability may leave students unprepared for the careers that will exist in 20 years. The humanities teach adaptability, not just employability.
五、文法檢查清單 (Grammar Checklist for Writing)
每次寫完作文，用這個清單檢查一遍再送出：
冠詞 (Articles — a, an, the)
| 檢查項目 | 例 |
|---|---|
| 單數可數名詞前要有 a/an/the | 錯: “Student should study hard.” → 對: “A student should study hard.” |
| 第一次提到的東西用 a/an，再提到用 the | ”I saw a dog. The dog was brown.” |
| 河流、海洋、山脈、國家全名前加 the | the Amazon, the United States, the Alps |
| 抽象名詞、複數泛指不加 the | ”Technology has changed society.” (不是 The technology) |
主謂一致 (Subject-Verb Agreement)
| 檢查項目 | 例 |
|---|---|
| 第三人稱單數要加 -s | 錯: “The professor argue that…” → 對: “The professor argues that…” |
| 複數主詞不要加 -s | 錯: “The students studies hard.” → 對: “The students study hard.” |
| 倒裝句主詞在後面 | ”Not only do students need to…” (不是 does) |
| there is/are 看後面的名詞 | ”There is a problem.” vs. “There are problems.” |
| Each/Every 視為單數 | ”Each of the students has a book.” |
時態一致 (Tense Consistency)
| 檢查項目 | 例 |
|---|---|
| 不要在同一段亂跳時態 | 如果開始用過去式，整段都用過去式 |
| 閱讀/聽力內容用現在式 | ”The reading argues… The professor states…” |
| 例子如果是過去事件，用過去式 | ”For example, the Romans built aqueducts…” |
| 自身經驗/假設用現在式 | ”In my experience, this approach works well.” |
其他常見錯誤
| 檢查項目 | 錯 | 對 |
|---|---|---|
| 名詞單複數 | ”One of the reason is…" | "One of the reasons is…” |
| 介係詞 | ”depend in” / “focus in" | "depend on” / “focus on” |
| 不定詞 vs 動名詞 | ”I enjoy to read." | "I enjoy reading.” |
| 連接詞後句型完整 | ”Because the weather. I stayed home." | "Because the weather was bad, I stayed home.” |
| 代名詞指代清楚 | ”The policy was rejected by the committee. It was unfair.” (代什麼?) | ”The committee’s rejection of the policy was unfair.” |
六、台灣學生常犯的五大寫作錯誤
錯誤 1：直譯中文句子結構
問題： 把中文的語序和句型直接套進英文。
| 中文思維 (錯) | 英文應該 (對) |
|---|---|
| “Although he is rich, but he is not happy." | "Although he is rich, he is not happy.” (although 和 but 不能連用) |
| “Because I was tired, so I went to bed." | "Because I was tired, I went to bed.” (because 和 so 不能連用) |
| “There have many students…" | "There are many students…” (中文的「有」≠英文的 have/there are) |
| “I very like this movie." | "I really like this movie.” / “I like this movie very much.” (very 不能直接修飾動詞) |
威威老師小提醒
英文和中文的「雖然…但是…」、「因為…所以…」結構不一樣！中文可以一起用，英文只能選一個。這是台灣學生寫作最常見的扣分點，一定要檢查。
錯誤 2：少了主詞或動詞
問題： 寫出沒有主詞或沒有動詞的不完整句子。
| 錯 | 對 |
|---|---|
| ”Is important to study." | "It is important to study." |
| "The policy unfair to students." | "The policy is unfair to students." |
| "Many people think that important." | "Many people think that it is important.” |
錯誤 3：可數 vs. 不可數名詞混淆
問題： 沒有區分可數/不可數名詞，亂用複數和量詞。
| 不可數名詞（不加 s） | 常被誤加 s |
|---|---|
| information | |
| research | |
| advice | |
| evidence | |
| knowledge | |
| equipment | |
| furniture | |
| vocabulary |
錯誤 4：過度使用相同句型
問題： 整篇文章都是 “I think… I think… I think…” 或 “It is… It is… It is…”
解法： 刻意變換句型：
| 單調句型 | 變化 |
|---|---|
| I think X is good. | X offers several advantages. / X proves beneficial because… |
| It is important to… | Doing X plays a crucial role in… |
| This shows that… | This demonstrates / illustrates / reveals / confirms that… |
| X is bad. | X poses a risk / creates problems / has negative consequences |
錯誤 5：過度使用被動語態
問題： 台灣學生常過度使用被動語態，很多時候不合適。
| 不自然的被動 | 自然的表達 |
|---|---|
| ”Homework is needed to be done by students." | "Students need to do their homework." |
| "It is believed by me that…" | "I believe that…" |
| "A decision was made by the committee." | "The committee made a decision.” (okay, but active is clearer) |
七、寫作時間管理總表
| Task | 時間 | 要完成的內容 |
|---|---|---|
| Task 1 | 20 min | Intro (2 min) + Body x3 (12 min) + Check (6 min) |
| Task 2 | 10 min | Analyze discussion (1 min) + Write reply (7 min) + Check (2 min) |
威威老師小提醒
Task 2 只有 10 分鐘，很多人一開始會愣住不知道寫什麼。我的建議：不要先想你的完整論點，先開始打字！ 看到題目後，30 秒內決定你的立場，然後打第一個句子 “I agree with…” 或 “I see this issue differently…” — 一旦第一句出來了，後面的內容會自然地跟上。不要等靈感來，靈感是在打字過程中產生的。
威威老師的最後一句話
TOEFL 寫作不是作文比賽——
- 不需要你的文章「感人」
- 不需要你的文章「有文采」
- 需要的是：結構清楚、邏輯順暢、文法正確的學術短文！
3 大成功要素：
- 模板練熟——Task 1 的反駁公式 + Task 2 的論點公式
- 常見錯誤改掉——主詞動詞一致、時態一致、避免被動語態濫用
- 打字快——TOEFL 寫作 = 打字考試，慢手拖累分數！
記住威威心法：
整潔的結構 + 準確的內容 > 華麗的詞藻
12 週有計畫地練——TOEFL Writing 24+ 絕對不是問題！
我們考場上見！✍️🚂