In many places, students must arrive very early in the morning to attend school. Some people believe that starting the school day early is the best approach to support learning, but others believe that starting the school day at a later time in the morning would be better for students. Which view do you agree with and why?
观点：I believe starting the school day early is the best approach to support learning.
First thing first, starting the school day early enables students to have more time to study. To be more specific, noting is more precious than time especially for students. Early morning is the period when studens are most energetic. Therefore, if the studying time in the morning is extended, the students' efficiency of learning can be improved accordingly. A typical example to the point might be my high school. During the first year, the first class in the moring began at 8:00 late in the morning, I could not to anything except listening to teachers because I could spare no time do something else. The next year our school started to make changes. We were supposed to take an extra self-study class that starts from 6:30 early in the morning. I started to make use of the time in the early morning, and I found that I could recite two more passages than before each day. Moreover, during the self-study class, I could even get prepared for the coming classes and have a better understanding of the knowledge I learned. As a result, my grades became better and better due to the new approach to start the school early. In the light of this example, we can see that starting the school day early is a effective way to support learning.
TPO 62 模考我的答案
Scaled score 22
Integration Writing
raw score 3.0
Both the lecture and the passage discessed about the use of artificial reefs. However, their viewpoints are strongly contradictory for several reasons.
Firstly, the reading points out that artificial reefs may increase the populations of seveal species of fish, but the lecturer supposes that this do not mean the overall increasement of the fish. This is because the artifial reef is more likely to attract fish that live distant from the reef, so the fish have to move to the reef. When people catch the fish around the reef, the population of the kind of fish being caught will decrease beacause they cannot maintain more polulations.
Moreover, the author holds that artificial reefs can alse improve the economical competitiveness of small-scale fishers. The lecturer, however, believes that it is fatal to remain the reef positions secret. He gives us with the example of the use of large net. This approach would definitely destroy the reef and the only safe way is to make the position of the reef known by people, thus this would do no help to improve the economical competitiveness of small-scale fishers.
Besides, the professor also refutes the idea that the use of artificial reefs can recycle useless materials. He states that the implementation of artificial reefs is sure to cause environmental damage. He provides us with the example of osborne reef to illustrate the point. This kind of reef is made of car tyres. When a storm occurs, the reef will get loose and became loose parts which will couse environmental damage, and make many sea creatures leaving dead on the sea floor.
In sum, according to the discussion above, the speaker totally disagrees with the conclusions revealed in the reading passage.
Independent Writing
raw score 4.0
Nowadays, there are thousands of students graduating from high scholl every year. Accordingly, the graduate shtdents are facing a choice of whether to take at least a year off to work or travel before studying at a university. The problem is causing polarized debate among those graduates and their parents. I, given the chance, would like to state it is necessary for students gratudated from high school to take at least a year off to work or travel before entering college.
First of all, sparing one's time to work before entering university helps him to gain work experience. To be specific, the working experience and skills acquired through the process helps oneself to quickly adapt to college life. A good example in case might be myself. After I graduated from high school, I decided to take a year off to do seveal part-time jobs. I worked as a waiter in a restaurant and I learned to be concentrated on what I am doing. Besides, I also served as a programmer doing data analysis in an IT company, from which I learned a lot techniques to deal with large amounts of data. As a result, everything seemed to be easy for me when I entered college. The working experience I gained helped me do get straight A in my first semester. In the light of this, I suppose it is crutial to take at least one year off to work after high school.
Moreover, I believe that spending a year or more travelling before becoming a college student is of geat significance. That is to say, through travelling, one can get familiar with the characteristics of the city he gets by, which will help him to decide which place to work or stay after graduating from college. To exemplify that, I would like to take myself as an example again. During the one year off, I also travelled to some popular city in China like Beijing or Shanghai. I discovered from my travelling experience that Beijing is an energetic city but it is too cold to stay at during winter. Besides, I found that Shanghai is full of opportunities especially chances for IT engineers like me. I finally decided to stay in Shanghai after college and thanks to my one year off travelling experience, I think I have made the right choice because I have just got a decent job in Shanghai. Therefore, spending a year travelling is important as well.
In a word, I certainly agree with the idea that students gratudated from high school should take at least a year off to work or travel before entering college, for it helps to make oneself more adaptive to the college and can also let the student make the relatively correct choice of working place after graduation.
A university has money in its budget to do ONE thing to improve its facilities for students: it can either improve the quality of the technology (for example, computers and printers that it provides for students, OR it can redesign spaces where students hold club meetings and gather with friends in their spare time to make these areas more comfortable and appealing. Which idea do you prefer, and why?
Universities are trying their best to promote its facilities for students, while the budget is usually limited. It seems unpractical for universities to spend money on every aspects of the school. Some people believe that improving the quality of the technology should be put in the first place. While others, in contrast, insist that it is better for school to redesign the leisure areas to make these areas more comfortable and appealing. I, given the chance, would like to state that it is better to spend money to improve the technology standard of the school.
First thing first, the student will have a better working efficiency with higher quality technological devices. To be more specific, technological devices is being used nearly everywhere inside the campus. There are printers inside the office, computers in the IT center, and online teaching system placed in every dormitory. Therefore, with the promotion of these technological devices, students' quality of life and study will be improved accordingly. A good example in case might be my college. When I was in the last semester of school, I was busy doing a machine learning project to finish my thesis. The time-consuming trainig process usually takes about two days to run. However, our school used their fundings and provided our laboratory with better computer CPUs and GPUs, hence my programming project could be done within 4 hours, which profoundly improved my research effeciency. From this case we can conclude that it is worth investing on the technology inside the school.
Moreover, funding on the quality of the technology can save students' money. That is to say, oceans of internet resources and technological tools are being used by college students especially those who major in science. Only a small part of those resources are free of charge, which means it is common for students to pay for these resources. For instance, a student major in data science usually use calculating tools like MATLAB and Mathematica. Those tools charges about 100 dollars for individual each year which is too expensive for a student. Consider if the school pay for those fees, it will certainly lighten students' financial burden. Some people may think that the school should fund in entertainment first, this opinion does make sense to some extent, for students need to relax themselves. However, there are already enough entertainment like cafeteria or shopping mall outside the campus, there is no need to pay extra money to redesign the leisure areas. Therefore, I firmly hold the opinion that it is better to spend money improving the technology standard of the school first.
In a word, I believe that universities should improve the quality of the technology first, for it can both technically and financially benefit the students.
(To exemplify that, I would like to take my college as an example again. Being a student major in statistics and data science, I usually use calculating tools like MATLAB and Mathematica. Those tools charges about 100 dollars for individual each year which is too expensive for a student like me. Luckily, my college had signed a contract with MATLAB and all the students can use the product for free. Thanks to the school's policy, I could save roughly over a thousand dollars throughout my college life. In the light of this, )