托福写作结构清晰评分标准

雅思写作分数一直难以提高，那是考生没有抓住雅思写作重点。今天小编给大家带来了雅思写作分数提高小建议 ,希望能够帮助到大家，一起来学习吧。

雅思写作分数提高小建议

记住，task1更像是一个报告，这就是为什么要考察“是否没有遗漏”， “或者你如何展示所有的主要信息。task2需要你去分析问题，因此要考察“分析程度”。

雅思写作评分标准第1点：你的作文是否包含了题目中所有的要求?

低完成度作文与高完成度作文的区别

在这一雅思写作评分标准中，低分和高分的文章主要有2大区别：

低完成度作文不符合最低要求和/或不符合题目中提出的所有要求。

高完成度作文既满足了最低要求，也包含了题目中提出的要求。

提高作文完成度的几点提示

要怎样写雅思作文task1才能得高分?如果您不满足词汇量这一雅思写作评分标准，那么你必须找到一种能够写得更快的方法。这里有一些策略可以帮助你：

•首先，缩短你在写作之前进行头脑风暴的时间。写task1时，头脑风暴时间不要超过2分钟。写task2时，可以适当延长，但不要太多，不超过3到4分钟即可。

•第二，写得更快。有些人写雅思作文时慢慢写。如果你是这种情况，你在练习雅思写作时需要多点速度训练。问题是写作练习需要花费很多时间(2篇完整的雅思作文需要一个小时)。因此，给自己定一个可以做得完的作文模拟题目标是非常重要的。

•每天训练短文写作(比雅思作文要短)也是必要的。选择与雅思主题相类似的题目，并用10-15分钟写一篇短文。在这10-15分钟内，尝试花很少时间头脑风暴(比如30秒)，写尽可能多的东西。大多数学生发现通过这样的练习，他们写短文的字数越来越多 - 但请记住，这需要慢慢来!

雅思写作评分标准第2点：论文的中心思想是否充分展现?

提高雅思作文完成度的几点建议(task1)

• 根据题目中的提示进行改写，练习写首段。每次练习写作文的时候，只练习写首段，正文和结尾都不写，还是很有效的。为什么这么说?因为第1段需要很简洁明了：你只需要用你自己的话把题目的信息和图表上的数字复述一遍即可。其实挺有挑战性的，毕竟释义需要强大的用词技巧。只有练得越多，才会越容易!

• 雅思作文task1的题目一般只要求考生在两个多少相些关系的图表之间进行比较。许多学生一头扎进比较不同这块，却忽略了整体性，这就偏离了雅思写作评分标准。许多考生都是在不同的段落中分别阐述不同图表，但其实还需要综合一下，找出两个图表中相关的信息。

提高雅思作文完成度的几点建议(task 2)

确保你的文章中讨论了题目中需要讨论的所有点!这听起来很不可思议，但就是有很多学生遗漏了某点而丢分，已经成了常见的问题。

我们来看一个例子，好好理解这个雅思写作评分标准：

越来越多的人选择在网上购物，而不是在商店购物。购物者和社区的这种趋势有哪些优点和缺点?

要想得到满分，就必须解决提示中的所有讨论点。因此您至少需要就以下几点进行讨论：

1)购物者在线购物的优缺点

2)社区在线购物的优缺点

很多时候，考生只就其中一点去写，要么是因为时间不够，要么就是没有意识到需要涵盖以上列出的那2点。

一个更大的问题是考生没有直白地去说明讨论点，在这道题中就是讨论优点和缺点。例如，会有很多考生只写为什么大部分都是在网上购物。虽然与文章题目相关，但是这样的写法并没有直接对论点进行讨论，也是不符合雅思写作评分标准。

如果您写task2雅思作文时忽略了对某一点的分析，请放慢速度!花些时间(10分钟或更久)列个提纲，然后再开始写。好好思考作文题目，并想清楚要如何直接去讨论哪些论点。

雅思写作Task2社会类考官范文

International entertainers, including sports personalities, often get paid millions of dollars in one year.

In your view, with widespread poverty in the world, are these huge earnings justified?

Model Answer:

The salaries of many singers, dancers and sports people have increased out of all proportion in recent years, while in places like Sudan people are starving to death. I do not believe that anyone should be able to earn such enormous salaries what so many people in the world are living in poverty.

One of the factors which should affect what a person can earn ought to be the benefit of person's work to society. It is unreasonable for a famous singer to be able to earn far more from an evening's entertainment than, for instance, a medical scientist who develops a new drug which produces a treatment for a common disease. The pop star certainly has a value in society, but the value in no way exceeds, or even matches, the value gained from a successful medication.

Secondly. work done should be paid according to the amount of effort and skill that goes into it. Nobody would deny that a famous person works hard and is skillful, yet such people do not work any harder than thousand of other workers who have no claim to fame. Yet market force are such that these super stars can obtain millions of dolor while other unknown people sometimes earn less than they need to survive.

Finally, it should be possible for governments to work together to ensure that the amount of money in circulation should be more equally and fairly distributed. This seems only fair given that there are so many suffering.

To conclude, it is clear that world poverty is a serious problem and yet the problem could be eased if governments and companies gave more thought to paying salaries on a more equitable basis and if they started to contribute more money to those in need.

雅思写作Task2社会类考官范文

"Prevention is better than cure." Out of a country's health budget, a large proportion should be diverted from treatment to spending on health education and preventative measures.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Model Answer:

Of course it goes without saying that prevention is better than cure. That is why, in recent years, there has been a growing body of opinion in favour of putting more resources into health education and preventive measures. The argument is that ignorance of, for example, basic hygiene or the dangers of an unhealthy diet or lifestyle needs to be combatted by special nationwide publicity campaigns, as well as longer-term health education.

Obviously, there is a strong human argument for catching any medical condition as early as possible. There is also an economic argument for doing so. Statistics demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of treating a condition in the early stages, rather than delaying until more expensive and prolonged treatment is necessary. Then there are social or economic costs, perhaps in terms of loss of earnings for the family concerned or unemployed benefit paid by the state.

So far so good, but the difficulties start when we try to define what the 'proportion' of the budget should be, particularly if the funds will be 'diverted from treatment'. Decisions on exactly how much of the total health budget should be spent in this way are not a matter for the non-specialist, but should be made on the basis of an accepted health service model.

This is the point at which real problems occur - the formulation of the model. How do we accurately measure which health education campaigns are effective in both medical and financial terms? How do we agree about the medical efficacy of various screening programmes, for example, when the medical establishment itself does not agree? A very rigorous process of evaluation is called for, so that we can make informed decisions.