新一轮的雅思考试又结束了,此次真题感觉如何呢?想必是不少出国人士比较关心的问题,和出国留学网一起来了解了解2018年2月10日雅思写作真题回忆解析,欢迎阅读。
2018年2月10日雅思写作真题回忆解析
类别 | Line Chart |
题目 | The graph shows the size of ozone layer hole in Antarctic and the production of three kinds of ozone-damaging gases from 1980 to 2000. Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. |
题目翻译 | 如下线图显示了1980年至2000年南极臭氧层空洞的面积,以及危害臭氧层的三种气体排放。 选取主要的特征对信息进行概括,在相关的地方进行比较。 |
要素回忆(数据仅供参考):动态线图 #FormatImgID_0# | |
写作指导 | 1. 注意时态,要用过去时。 2.主体部分分为两个段落: Body1:size of ozone hole Body2:production of ozone-damaging gases 3.最后一段:比较两个主体段 |
重点表达式 | The period from … to … underwent a sudden rise of … from … to …. … while a greater number of A than B were found in … (the former is… and the later is …) By contrast, A increased (declined) from … in … to … in …. |
题目评价 | 难度一般 |
推荐练习 | 剑桥真题8, test3 剑桥真题9, test4 |
近期考试趋势 | 近期重点关注柱状图、柱状图。并预警流程图。 |
Task 2
考试日期 | 2018.02.10 |
类别 | 社会类 |
题目 | Some people believe that people who read books can develop more imagination and language skills than those who prefer to watch TV. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? |
题目翻译 | 有些人认为,相比喜欢看电视的人来说,读书可更多地开发人的想象力和语言技能。 你多大程度上同意还是反对这个观点? |
写作指导 | (1)单边题型。建议写中立偏同意。 (2)Possible Ideas: 让步段: 诚然,看电视为观众(尤其儿童),提供影像信息,拓宽了视野。 立场段: a. 然而,电视不能开发想象力,其影像信息甚至限制了观众想象力的发挥。相反,书上没有图像,有助于读者通过语言发挥想象力 b. 不同于电视图像和声音分散注意力,阅读可使读者关注语言。 c. 同时,相比电视上较为非正式的口头语言,书上的语言较正式、规范。 Conclusion: 重申立场,总结主体段 |
重点表达 | Unlock people’s imaginative potential; be provided with more room for imagination; visualize sth. in our minds; oral styles; be addicted to; writing skills; spelling and grammatical mistakes; employ different words; stifle people’s creative potential |
题目评价 | 旧题,难度一般 |
推荐练习 | 2010.3.27 Studies suggest that children spend more and more time on watching TV than they did in the past and spend less time on doing active or creative things. Why do you think this is the case? What measures can be used to solve the problem? |
近期考试趋势 | 近期考生可多关注社会、文化、教育、犯罪类话题。 |
Task2参考范文:
Since the beginning of civilization, human beings have joined in the pious hope that books, as a whole, would edify people by sparking their imagination, spurring their creativity, and enhancing their linguistic aptitude. By stark contrast, the ascent of modern media has only goaded on the harangues against arts by mechanical reproduction. TV – as commonly perceived as the epitome of “lowbrow” culture – has become a case in point. However, such sweeping generalization, or rather simplistic dichotomy, is susceptible to further examination.
If books in ancient times or pre-industrial era remained rare commodities or some “food for soul” of scarcity, such trite elitism hardly holds true anymore. It’s commonly acknowledged that the modern publishing industry has thrived in tandem not only with people’s intellectual needs or the authors’ meticulous research and tormenting introspection, but also the economic cycle, the scandals and rumors of celebrities, the life and (probably untimely) death of much glorified politicians and business tycoons, recipes for success, some ephemeral buzzwords in marketing etc. The life cycle publishing industry hence no more than mirrors the myriad of supply and demand curves in the real commercialized world, which only makes it all the more demanding on the readers’ effort to distinguish what is good from what is bad. It thus does not come as surprise when Arthur Rubinstein, the pianist of great theatricality, grieved at his becoming blind at 90 years young: “I simply regret having read so many bad books all my life.” Such compunction will undoubtedly repeat itself on you and me and alike.
If a book is characterized as intellectual fast food or worse by readers, it would be futile and far-fetching to discuss its effect on their cognition or knack for languages. However, if we think of some breath-taking TV documentaries on some of scenic places in some uncharted land or those unraveling the myth of human civilization and the universe, it is hard not to concede that they are indeed more edifying than some of the potboiler books. As Nabokov once wryly has it, “imagination is merely a function of memory”; and memory a multiplication of vision and learning. By the same token, who would deny that Maggie Smith’s impeccable rendering – with those witty twists in her uncanny demeanor - in so many TV series simply outshines the unending clichés in those best-selling books?
To conclude, books, as a traditionally much venerated cultural form, should not be overrated in its importance on transforming one’s intellectual capacity, as manifested by many cautionary tales. Both illuminating books and inspiring TV programs call for one’s discerning capacity.
以上是小编整理的2018年2月10日雅思真题回忆解析,谢谢您的阅读,如想了解更多资讯,请继续关注出国留学网其他栏目。