托福满分范文120篇 111-120

admin管理员组

文章数量:1584335

120

What is the most important action for the government to solve environmental problems?

1) Funding research on new energy sources such as solar and wind power;

2) Protecting the forest and wildlife;

3) Passing and enforcing laws to reduce the pollution.

There is almost unanimous concern around the world about environmental degradation, which has given rise to debate about the measures that should be taken to reverse the trend.

Whilst some advocate that governments should prioritize the protection of forests and wildlife, others point to the pressing need to concentrate on reducing the catastrophic levels of pollution. Another lobby calls for increased funding to research renewable sources of energy.

I believe the best way to protect the environment is to develop cleaner sources of energy.

 

I really think that governments need to invest in the funding of research and development of sustainable and clean energy sources such as solar and wind power.

Today, environmental problems occupy prime time on television and take up many column inches in newspapers. Though there are numerous environmental issues which raise concern, many seemed to be linked to the burning of fossil fuels.

For example, the burning of coal and oil contributes to the high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which leads to global warming; smog, which is a severe problem in metropolises, is exacerbated by the soaring numbers of gas guzzling cars on the road.

In this regard, the availability of economical and inexhaustible sources of energy will reduce the dependency on fossil fuels and put an end to the above-mentioned environmental hazards.

Hence, it is vital that scientists find alternatives to traditional fuels.

 

Second, it is not realistic to reverse the current trend of deforestation and extinction of wildlife.

The clearing of forests, the destruction of habitats and the hunting of animals to near extinction are partly rooted in the need to feed and accommodate an increasing population. As long as the world population continues to rise, there is no real prospect of halting the destruction of forests.

Greed is also another contributing factor to this trend. Humans, by nature, are self-centered and would not hesitate for a minute to cut down a tree or kill an animal for their own interests, regardless of the disastrous effects on wild species and the forest.

Darwin would not reproach us for our self-centered behaviors, since it is his own assertion that stronger species survive while weaker ones do not.

 

Finally, the enactment and enforcement of laws to reduce pollution could hardly yield the desired consequences.

In my view, no amount of enforcement can ensure complete compliance with such laws by companies and individuals. There are always means by which people and private companies can avoid compliance with legislation.

Hence, no matter how reasonable laws are and how strictly they are enforced, governments will hardly be able to bring environmentally harmful activities to an end.

 

In conclusion, compared with protecting forests and wild life, and passing laws to reducing pollution, the development of clean new energies should be the top priority for governments across the globe to solve environmental problems.

 

119

Some argue that we should use cleaner energy sources to protect the environment, while others believe traditional energy sources like coal and oil are better because they are less expensive. What is your opinion?

 

The consumption of energy and the environmental costs of using traditional sources of energy such as coal and oil have raised grave concerns amongst many. Such concerns will become more acute as traditional forms of energy run out, at the same time as the demand for energy increases around the world.

Some argue that we need to use cleaner source of energy to protect the environments. However, opponents contend that traditional sources are better because they are less expensive than renewable sources of energy.

As far as I am concerned, the use of cleaner energy sources would be better.

 

It is undeniable that traditional sources of energy such as coal and oil are cheaper than newer, sustainable sources of energy and this factor has huge influence on the behavior of companies and individuals alike. Factories employ cheaper energy sources to remain competitive and keep manufacturing costs as low as possible, while families choose coal to power heaters to save money. However, such behavior comes at a great cost to the environment

Traditional energies generate harmful by-products such as CO2, SO2 or NO, which contaminate water, pollute the air and thus pose a real threat to inhabitants of these places.

Unlike fossil fuel, new sources of energies are eco-friendly and do not produce pollutants generated by coal or oil. According to a recent survey conducted by the Environment Bureau, an analysis of hundreds of reports on the most frequently used energies, concluded the most likely by-product of clean energies such as hydrogen or tidal energy, is H2O (water).

Therefore, it would be judicious to use alternative sources of energy such as wind or solar power

 

Further, unlike the traditional forms of energy, the process of producing clean energies is environmentally friendly. In industrial production, by decomposing water via sunlight, factories can generate hydrogen, which can then be converted into hydrogen energy. The process of generating energy using tidal waves is even simpler due to gravitational forces, and no harmful or poisonous chemicals are produced.

In stark contrast, currently, gasoline and diesel fuels are processed from crude oil. Through a series of complex chemical reactions, oil plants create gasoline and diesel fuels but omit harmful by-products such as sulfur dioxide or carbon dioxide. In brief, the production of cleaner energies has minimal or virtually no side-effects on the environment, be it during production or use.

Last and most importantly, cleaner energies are renewable unlike coal or oil which will run out at some point in the future, whereas clean energy is generated from sunlight and tidal forces, both of which are infinite and inexhaustible. Consequently, people do not have to utilize precious natural resources such as coal to generate energy.

 

To sum up, traditional and inexpensive sources of energy such as coal and oil are commonly used to generate energy but the cost to the environment is too high. Besides, traditional energy sources are not inexhaustible.

Governments around the world must look at alternative cleaner sources of energy as discussed above.

118

Modern agriculture methods damage the environment, but providing food for the growing population around the world is more important than protecting the environment.

Modern agricultural methods, which include the use of pesticides and artificial fertilizers, are widely used around the world. Whilst this is an efficient and cheap form of producing crops on an industrial scale, it has many negative consequences, the most obvious being environmental degradation.

Some people believe that such environmental risks should not be taken into consideration when millions of people are suffering from the lack of food.

I totally disagree with this view.

 

To begin with, the reckless expansion of modern agriculture will backfire and even put an end to human civilization.

In the short term, providing food for a growing number of people is the concern of many governments across the globe. However, taking a short-sighted view and employing unsustainable agricultural methods to feed people is not the solution, as it harms the very environment on which people's survival depends. More often than not, whenever the environment gets damaged, the disastrous effects are irreversible.

Let me explain. Although modern agricultural methods provide adequate amounts of food to feed the world, it comes at a cost to the environment in the form of water contamination, soil erosion and the like. When people eat crops grown on contaminated soil with polluted water, it can lead to health problems on a large scale, which many governments cannot afford, particularly in the developing world.

 

In addition, a clean and healthy environment provides people with a place to relax and escape from the rigors of their everyday lives. This is only feasible where there is a clean environment.

When my city is free of pollution and the weather is pleasant, my family and I get out of the city and go out for the day. We go for hikes, have barbecues, play hide and seek in the forest or fish where there is a lake. We stay indoors when the weather is not good, or pollution in the city is bad, as this makes outdoor activities difficult.

 

Furthermore, we don't need modern agriculture to feed the expanding world population.

The world produces enough food to feed the world, but much of this food is wasted or sits in warehouses rotting away. A reduction in food wastage and better distribution to ensure that food reaches the poor, are required to reduce the need to produce food on an industrial scale and reduce dependence on modern agricultural methods.

Therefore, what we should prioritize is not to reclaim farmland from wilderness areas but to reform the way to allocate resources.

 

I firmly believe that we cannot sustain modern farming methods at current levels without causing long-term and irrevocable damage to the environment.

Governments and companies need to find more appropriate ways of reducing food waste and leftovers.

117

Most of the environment issues are too complicated, and individuals can do nothing.

 

The question is whether corporate action by governments and companies can solve some of the most persistent ecological crises, or whether responsibility and power to do something rests with the individual.

As I see it, environmental problems can only be solved by individual action.

 

First, air pollution can only be solved once people start monitoring their consumption of fossil fuel.

Many are quick to blame large coal-fired power plants for the massive amount of smog and greenhouse gases suffocating our planet. In fact, it is the demand for energy taken from coal plants, and even cleaner energy sources such as wind and hydropower, which drives air pollution.

Only when the individual decreases their own consumption of energy will we see a reduction in the production of damaging airborne pollutants.

A mixture of conservation and efficiency on a personal scale is the only means to address the air pollution problem, rather than corporate fuel-switching or governmental mandates that may or may not be obeyed or enforced.

 

Second, endangered species protection can only be bolstered by the united effort of the people.

Endangered species are disappearing at an alarming rate due to deforestation and over-hunting. The key to reverse this trend lies with individual efforts.

Only with the cooperation and sacrifice of landowners can more reclaimed farm land be turned into wilderness areas where wild species can inhabit; only with the restraint of consumers from buying more furs and ivories can illegal hunting come to an end. In fact, whether endangered species could be saved from an untimely demise depends on individual awareness. It is not an undertaking too difficult for the individual.

 

Finally, another environmental issue that depends on the individual is the reduction of the carbon output of livestock.

Corporations may claim that they can do this by feeding well-bred cattle better grass and grain, and bioengineering also promises to bring under control the carbon emissions of livestock.

However, no amount of bioengineering can be shown to adequately reduce the amount of gas emitted by bovine flatulence, belching, and manure decay. The only thing that can sufficiently reduce methane emissions to a tolerable level is a reduction in herds, which can only come about if people choose to eat less meat and other animal products. Of course, this is an individual decision, even when religious beliefs or governments dictate vegetarianism.

 

To paraphrase the sociologist Margaret Mead, the only thing that has ever made a difference in human history is the individual. The environmental issues that we face are not immune from this famous dictum.

 

116

If you need to discuss upsetting or controversial problems with others, it is better to communicate with them using e-mail or text messaging rather than speaking with them on the telephone or in person.

The advancement of technology has introduced countless forms of communication. Emails, text messaging and other similar applications make it easy to communicate with anyone, anywhere and at any time.

Although the advent of emails and texting has made communication more accessible, inexpensive and instantaneous for billions of people, I still believe they are no substitute for face-to-face contact, particularly where serious and confidential issues are concerned.

 

It is undeniable that instant messaging and text messaging are very convenient and cheap options for individuals and organizations to communicate with others.

For example, a company that needs to converse with a client who is located far away, can simply email the terms of a contract, send a reminder about looming deadlines or request feedback about that service. True, email is an easy means of communication

However, it is not suitable for dealing with complex or controversial matters, which can lead to misunderstandings and undesired outcomes. Such delicate matters are better dealt with face-to-face.

 

First, considering the time it takes to explain problems explicitly or for recipients to read and respond to emails, it would be easier to simply pick up the phone or arrange a meeting.

Discussions over the phone or in person allow individuals to ask questions, clarify things and clear misunderstandings in time, which will save us a lot of time.

When I have problems with complex math homework, itis easier for me to ring my friend and ask or his assistance, rather than emailing him. If I were to email my friend, I would have to explain the problem my fiend would have to decipher the message, find a solution and then email me back. This is time-wasting and something may get lost in translation!

 

Further and perhaps most importantly email and text messaging does not provide the personal and friendly touch which personal contact allows.

When we speak to somebody or see them, we can hear the intonation in their voices or see the expressions on their faces. As variations in tones or gestures reflect the inner feelings of a person, such verbal and physical cues allow the recipient to respond accordingly and thus facilitate the understanding between people in the discussion of upsetting and controversial issues.

This is perhaps why certain things such as political and business negotiation are done in person and not through email or text messaging.

Therefore, conversations about settling disagreement or other thorny personal matters are best done face-to-face.

 

In conclusion, though emails and text messages are a convenient means of communication between people, they are not suitable for all situations. Personal or controversial problems should be discussed in person as it allows both parties to ask questions, clarify misunderstanding and resolve the problem amicably.

115

Printed books have greater effect on society than television does.

 

Due to the availability of television, its low cost and widespread impact on contemporary culture, most people believe that the television has a far greater effect on society than the humble book

However, in my opinion, this is a mistaken assumption and books have a greater effect on society than television has.

 

It is undeniable that, television has a global reach and is an easily accessible source of information for millions of people around the world. It is also common and almost a tradition in many homes to see families huddled around television sets to watch their favorite dramas or catch up with the latest news. The television helps families to get together and talk, strengthening their bond.

However, on balance, with the onslaught of the internet, television has been gradually replaced as what can be found on the television can be found easily on the internet. In sharp contrast, there is no substitute for printed books, as is made evident by the important roles of books in academia.

 

In the hallow world of academia and libraries, books are still the main staple of lecturers and students alike, illustrating the special place books occupy today.

Television may entertain the masses, but books are what edify them. Books make modern education systems possible—they are the backbone of our schools and universities. In classes, while professors explain the theories written in textbooks, students make notes in books. This is the very way education has been taught from generation to generation.

Also, books are a key component in recording human progress, history and events. By recording what we already know, books provide a foundation upon which further knowledge can be built. Television cannot claim to have the same potential.

Therefore, it will be fair to state very little of academia relies on television— books are the mainstay of academic research and development

 

While it is undeniable that television has drastically impacted society, it must be remembered, that not only did books have the same effect centuries ago, they continue to serve an irreplaceable role in today’s society.

114

Some people like to keep a record of their own experience by uploading pictures and other information to social-networking sites. Other people prefer not to create such records. Which do you prefer and why?

 

Social networks have become an inevitable part of our daily lives. They have become extremely popular in the past ten years—especially among young people. The latest trend amongst teenagers and young people is to upload their pictures and other personal information on social networking sites such as Instagram and Facebook Whether people should post such information about themselves on the internet is the subject of debate.

Personally speaking, I am opposed to teenagers posting information on the internet for the reasons mentioned below.

 

Admittedly, some people like to use social networks to follow their friends, relatives and acquaintances, share personal pictures, anecdotes and other interesting tit-bits with friends. It is undoubtedly an effective means of overcoming the barriers of time and geography to stay in contact with people you have met.

However, looking at this from another perspective, the posting of personal information can lead to overexposure and in some cases pose a danger to the safety and security of users.

The posting of the most intimate and personal details of your lives leaves people vulnerable to things such as cyber bullying, trolling, identity theft and violations of privacy. To avoid such risks, it would be better for people not to post everything on the internet

 

Also, social media can have detrimental effects on the health and well-being of individuals, in particular young people who are obsessed with all kinds of social media to the extent that it begins to rule their lives.

A few years ago, users only posted pictures of holidays and a few special events but now everything is shared—no matter how trivial. People are bombarded daily with selfies, pictures of food and other equally irrelevant information and updates.

In my personal opinion, this fad has gone too far and needs to be stopped. The small graphics/texts on the bright screen strain people's eyes and can lead to potential vision problems that could include symptoms like eye irritation and redness, blurred vision and headaches.

What's worse, browsing social media in bed, which is irresistible， causes people constantly distracted by notifications and pop up messages. They won't be able to sleep easily with so many thoughts and distractions.

I believe for health's sake, most medical professionals will recommend you switch off your phone.

 

In addition, spending excessive amounts of time on social networking sites can lead to isolation and the loss of friends.

It is hard to forge relationships in cyberspace. Taking a picture or posting a status on a social-network is not the same thing as sharing experiences with friends in person. The simple click of a “like” button is no substitute for face-to-face communication between friends sharing a cup of coffee.

Young people should look beyond their gadgets and step out from cyber space into the real world, at least for a while. This may give them a glimpse of the beauty that surrounds them. Instead of taking pictures and posting them on social-network profiles, individuals should just stop and appreciate the precious moments they spend with friends and family.

 

In conclusion, I think that people should not post excessive amounts of personal information on social-networks.

113

People nowadays spend much more time than they should using text message and new technology such as social media to communicate with each other.

A cursory glance at people on the subway making their daily commute, shows them listening to music, making phone calls, sending WeChat messages or watching clips from their favorite TV shows on their phones or other mobile devices. This not only underscores the indispensable role of technology in today's society, but also illustrates how reliant people are on such technologies and the vast amounts of time they spend. So why are people hooked on technology? The causes are listed as follows.

 

First, modern technical devices offer great convenience for communication between people and their friends and family Smart phones have made it possible to transmit a message, with minimal key strokes, to another person almost instantaneously, thereby

having totally replaced good old-fashioned face-to-face contact. Older forms of communication, such as sending written letters, have become less frequent due to the constraints of time and physical distance.

Text messages and social networking sights also have the benefit of allowing people to preserve messages in their phones or account for an extended period of time, even forever, which enables users to retrieve and reply to messages at their convenience. Gone are the days when people waited by their phones for someone to return their call and then schedule a date.

 

Second, over reliance on new technology is also self-evident in the workplace.

Time lost due to delays in communication can be detrimental to a company's profit margin and in the worst-case scenario affect a country's economy. In other words, being able to transmit data and information quickly is the key to business success. Therein lies the reason why office workers hardly move their eyes from their computer or phone screens. They need those technologies to transmit data with speed and with ease, whether it be through text messages or social media, or more sophisticated networks—something which was unimaginable in the past.

Technology companies such as Apple, Google and Microsoft, thrive on producing the latest cutting-edge products; news agencies such as CNN and the BBC invest in cutting edge broadcasting equipment to get the first scoop when an event occurs, and financial institutions rely on computers to process millions of transactions every second.

 

Finally, new technology such as social media and mobile phones has impacted every facet of our lives to such an extent that social media has become synonymous with entertainment, news media and even life.

This is well-illustrated by WeChat, a world-beating social software with over 1 billion users across the globe. By allowing free messaging, voice calls, video calls, this application does more than to end the days when friends used to meet in coffee shops for a chat. It also equips its users with the ability to transfer money, buy shares, send each other a news feed from popular brands, pay for commodities and services,

and even donate to charities. In my observation, people's dependence on this application has come to the point where they cannot survive a day without WeChat.

 

In conclusion, people spend much more time on their gadgets than they should because of a number of factors discussed above.

112

Movies and television exert more negative effects than positive effects on young people's behaviors.

Over the years, television has been blamed for having a negative impact on young people, be it increasing levels of obesity, eating disorders such as anorexia amongst girls who starve themselves or exposure to excessive levels of violence.

Thus, some people conclude that the negative effects of the television far outweigh its benefits, but I disagree with this analysis.

 

Admittedly, entertainment, be it on the internet, TV, or in the printed media, can have negative effects on children

Excessive exposure to pornography and scenes of violence can blur the lines between fiction and reality for impressionable teenagers. In fact, sexually explicit scenes and violence pop upon TV screens from time to time and have caused widespread imitation among teenagers.

According to a recent survey, hundreds of young criminals aged 12 to 18, claimed that they copied violent behavior from television shows or movies.

Thus, to some extent, the media can be held responsible for the problematic behavior of teenagers who imitate what they view.

 

However, television and movies bring more benefits to children than disadvantages. First, educational programs and documentaries play an instrumental role in educating children on a variety of academic subjects in an innovative and engaging manner.

Unlike textbooks and routine classroom activities, which lead to boredom and tedium, television provides young minds with an auditory and visual experience.

My sister studies zoology, a very difficult subject at University. It was the viewing of the Discovery Channel with its vivid pictures and real-life shots of animals that aroused her interest in wildlife, taught her about the subject and ultimately led her to study for a degree in the subject. It is highly unlikely that her interests in animals would have been aroused as a teenager in high school, merely by reading textbooks，

 

Further, the medium of television can teach important life values in a light and entertaining manner.

TV series, even though mostly fictitious, are mostly reflections of such human experiences as hopes, fears, dreams and love. Watching those programs help children understand and appreciate life.

For example, watching movies such as Kung Fu Panda and seeing how a big fat panda rises to the dragon warrior can make children aware of the important role that dreams and persistence plays in self-fulfillment From the Harry Potter series, children can learn the importance of courage and friendships after seeing Harry and his friends fight the villains as a team.

 

Despite the few documented cases of the negative influence of televisions and movies on young people, I believe the medium has more positive effects on their behavior for the reasons above.

 

111

People can learn more from watching TV than from reading books.

As more and more people become technologically literate, increasing numbers are moving away from reading books to watching television, as their primary means of acquiring knowledge, in the belief that watching television is more effective than reading books. However, some refuse to accept this narrative and hold to the conventional wisdom that books are superior to television.

I am in favor of the former, as I believe the television, is a rich resource that contributes more knowledge than a mere pile of books or the words written in them.

 

First of all, television conveys a great deal of information in an easy and intelligible manner.

On television, content is presented in an informative way, and supported by moving images and music, which makes it more comprehensible, whereas books can be littered with lengthy words and abstract notions, making it difficult for people to fully grasp the subject-matter.

I offer my own experience to further illustrate the point. Last summer, I read a great deal of literature to learn about the Solar System. Despite my extensive reading and avid interest in the subject, I found it difficult to comprehend the axial rotation of the planets and their simultaneous revolution around the sun in their elliptical orbits. The plethora of technical terms such as gravitation, meteor, asteroid, comet, satellite served to confuse me even more. Not long after, I was fortunate enough to watch a documentary on the topic on the BBC. With the support of visuals and the succinct narration that accompanied the program, I figured out what the planetary orbit was all about.

 

In addition, television imparts knowledge in a more efficient manner than books.

Due to the finite length of programs, television omits irrelevant details and simply, preserves the essence of the contents for the audience. This improves efficiency and provides audiences with succinct information in a relatively short time.

In contrast, books are usually of low efficacy in their delivery of knowledge to the reader. Authors bewilder readers with too many insignificant details and words. Consequently, the reader may find this difficult to digest and simply “switch off.”

Imagine watching the evening news for only ten minutes; viewers will be well-informed about the important events happening in the world. Now contrast that, with reading a book for the same period of time, readers will only digest a limited amount of information.

 

It can be concluded that television is a far more effective means of acquiring knowledge than the book, for the reasons discussed above. In short, television viewers learn more than their book-reading counterparts.

 

本文标签： 托福满分范文