雅思大作文到底有没有套路可言
在上了一段时间雅思课程或者参加过考试后，很多同学往往认为小作文比大作文容易提高，原因是“套路”比较多，今天小编给大家带来了雅思大作文到底有没有套路可言,希望能够帮助到大家，一起来学习吧。
雅思大作文到底有没有套路可言
首先要回答的问题是，雅思大作文一般分几段?答案：建议四到五段，也就是主体段两到三段。再多或再少都不合适。再少，主体不分段，文章逻辑感不强，没有达到coherence and cohesion的评分标准;再多，在本身大作文字数不多的情况下，往往意味着没有一个分论点或主体段拓展充分。
以一个简单的题目为例，具体讲讲每个段落怎么写或者如何应用“套路”。
例题：
Some people think that living in big cities is bad for health. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion (2017.6.3)
首先关于开头段，我在不同分数段的班级所教授的方法有所不同。
在6.5分强化班，我会大致介绍典型学术议论文开头段有两个主要目的：
1. 介绍引出话题，也就是让读者自然进入话题，而不要突兀地在开头写“I totally agree/disagree with it.”
2. 亮明主旨概要
对于agree/disagree类型大作文，其实就是点出作者倾向;而对于其他类型的大作文，是告知读者本文的目的所在，例如“… has both positive and negative outcomes”。这一目的是选做的，也就是开头不写作者立场完全可以。
在5.5分班，有同学初次接触这类型作文，经常一提笔就语塞，怎么也写不出第一句话。针对这种情况，就推荐由三句话组成的一个更简单的模版：第一句“大背景”，可以写任何和该话题有关的内容，例如很多同学喜欢写的时代背景。就这题而言，“With the process of urbanization, an increasing numberof people move to big cities to seek for better work and educationalopportunities.”当然，套路的副作用是很多同学千篇一律的开头“Nowadays”。而更有创意的写法会令考官耳目一新，例如有人改写了钱钟书的名言，“大城市就像个围城，里面的人想要出去，外面的人想要进来……”
最后在7分班，追求高分的终极目标必然是接近natives，所以模仿考官范文是必不可少的。这时大家会发现，考官的范文几乎没有任何固定套路可言，只要心中有“谱”，落笔就可以自然地行云流水，丝毫不受套路的桎梏。需要提醒的是，不要写典型中国式的“假大空”的话，首当其冲的就是“With the development of society”。理由是社会的发展是个很宽泛的概念，老外根本无法和人们去城市生活联系起来，也就是英文写作需要越具体越直接越好。
接下来主体段，典型议论文一个opinion paragraph 至少包含一个鲜明的分论点，而且以主题句形式放在段落偏前位置。什么样的句子适合充当主题句呢?依然以这个话题为例，倾向agree的三位同学各想了一句话，请看谁的更适合作为topic sentence?
哪句更适合做topic sentence?
A Living in big cities is bad for health due to theair pollution.
B There are a large number of vehicles and factories in big cities.
C The large number of vehicles and factories in bigcities can emit poisonous gases, leading to respiratory diseases.
事实上三位说的都没问题，但相比而言A更适合。也就是说，主题句并非越长或越短越好，而是最直接回答原题，且是这段文字统领性的话。
接下来围绕主题句，拓展解释部分就称为支持句supporting sentences。常用的拓展方法包括因果法(此时就可以把B和C放里头)，还有对比论证法(例如By contrast, rural areas, with its boundless greenery,offer fresh air and water that does great benefit to people’s body and soul.)以及例证法(例如，Many people in Shanghai still have memories of theterribly smoggy weather that lasted for a whole winter.)
需要指出的是，支持句是紧密围绕主题句，对其进行展开的，切不可出现支持句“写飞了”的情况。例如某同学想要论证“奥运会的一个好处是给举办国带来经济受益”。后面写的却是“随着奥运会的举行，世界各国游客纷纷涌入。他们会在当地购买东西，这样也方便我国传播文化，提升我国在国际社会的地位”。所有不是直接解释“经济受益”的内容都是多余，属于逻辑凌乱，也就是议论文写作不要“over-ambitious”，一个论点充分论证后再写下一个论点。而论点之间彼此应该是相互平行或递进的关系，不应该出现彼此包含，甚至repetitive的情况。
最后在有限的时间里，如何快速完成大作文结尾段呢?对于所剩时间非常少的同学，两个任务可以就完成。
第一个：总结全文观点，重申立场。例如，In conclusion, when taking into account the airpollution, high working pressure and the spread of diseases, living in bigcities is indeed detrimental to people’s health. 这也是最不费神，比较好写的方法。
而时间没有那么仓促的同学，可以在第一个任务之后适当升华主题。升华的方法有很多，包括提个建议(Therefore, the government should do more to improvethe air quality and open more parks while the city dwellers themselves shouldkeep a balance between work and life.), 或是展望未来(Attention should be drawn to these issues, as it is predicted that morepeople will migrate to big cities and these problems will become even moresignificant.) 需要注意的是，结尾段自己的立场一定要鲜明，也就是不要出现“反水”的情况，在最后突然倒戈支持对立方。
所以总结来说，大作文有套路的地方包括：议论文的一般段落组成(有别于散文)、语言风格(正式语言、完整句子)、常用拓展技巧(因果法、例证法、对比法...);而需要大家自由发挥的内容包括：观点(没有对错之分)、拓展内容(说清楚就行)、段落结构(单边论证或让步与反驳论证都没关系)。同学们在掌握这些基本套路之后，就可以尽情地发挥创意、各抒己见!
雅思写作Task2社会类考官范文
Should parents be obliged to immunise their children against childhood diseases? Or do individuals have the right to choose not to immunise their children?
Model Answer 1:
Some people argue that the state does not have the right to make parents immunise their children. However, I feel the question is not whether they should immunise but whether, as members of society, they have the right not to.
Preventative medicine has proved to be the most effective way of reducing the incidence of fatal childhood diseases. As a result of the widespread practice of immunising young children in our society, many lives have been saved and the diseases have been reduced to almost zero.
In previous centuries children died from ordinary illnesses such as influenza and tuberculosis and because few people had immunity, the diseases spread easily. Diseases such as dysentery were the result of poor hygiene but these have long been eradicated since the arrival of good sanitation and clean water. Nobody would suggest that we should reverse this good practice now because dysentery has been wiped out.
Serious diseases such as polio and smallpox have also been eradicated through national immunisation programmes. In consequence, children not immunised are far less at risk in this disease-free society than they would otherwise be. Parents choosing not to immunise are relying on the fact that the diseases have already been eradicated. If the number of parents choosing not to immunise increased, there would be a similar increase in the risk of the diseases returning.
Immunisation is not an issue like seatbelts which affects only the individual. A decision not to immunise will have widespread repercussions for the whole of society and for this reason, I do not believe that individuals have the right to stand aside. In my opinion immunisation should be obligatory.
Model Answer 2:
The issue of whether we should force parents to immunise their children against common diseases is, in my opinion, a social rather than a medical question. Since we are free to choose what we expose our bodies to in the way of food, drink, or religion for that matter, why should the question of medical 'treatment' be any different?
Medical researchers and governments are primarily interested in overall statistics and trends and in money-saving schemes which fail to take into consideration the individual's concerns and rights. While immunisation against diseases such as tetanus and whooping cough may be effective, little information is released about the harmful effects of vaccinations which can sometimes result in stunted growth or even death.
The body is designed to resist disease and to create its own natural immunity through contact with that disease. So when children are given artificial immunity, we create a vulnerable society which is entirely dependent on immunisation. In the event that mass immunisation programmes were to cease, the society as a whole would be more at risk than ever before.
In addition there is the issue of the rights of the individual. As members of a society, why should we be obliged to subject our children to this potentially harmful practice? Some people may also be against immunisation on religious grounds and their needs must also be considered.
For these reasons I feel strongly that immunisation programmes should not be obligatory and that the individual should have the right to choose whether or not to participate.
雅思写作Task2社会类考官范文
Smokers can cause themselves serious health problems. The choice to smoke is made freely and with knowledge of dangers. Smokers should therefore expect to pay more for medical treatment than non-smokers.
To what extent do you agree with this statement?
Model Answer:
Everyone has the choice of being a smoker or not. The people who choose to smoke do so knowing there is a risk of causing harmful damage to themselves. However, I do not entirely agree that these people should have to pay more to receive all the medical treatment they need.
I think there are many situations in which a medical problem has nothing to do with whether a person smokes or not. In these cases, where an illness has no relation to smoking, then I believe that smokers should not be required to pay more than other people for their medical treatment. Most car accidents, for example, have no connection with smoking, and the people who are injured ought to have the same medical help, regardless of the cost. And what about the common flu - it does not seem justifiable to me that a smoker should have to pay more to see a doctor for an illness we can all contract.
On the other hand, I agree that a smoker should pay more than a non-smoker for the necessary treatment of any condition which has been caused by smoking. The principle that people should take responsibility for their own actions is a good one. Consequently, if a person chooses to smoke knowing that this habit can cause serious health problems, then there is no reason why the community or an insurance company should have to pay for medical treatment for an illness which could have been avoided.
In many countries, cigarette packets have a clear warning that smoking can cause health problems and so no smoker can claim not to know the danger. Lung cancer is sometimes a fatal disease and the treatment is both lengthy and expensive, and it is unfair for the smoker to expect the hospital or the community to carry the cost. In fact, it could also be argued that those who smoke in public should be asked to pay extra because of the illness caused to passive smokers.
In conclusion, I feel that smokers should pay more in cases related to smoking, but for any other illness they should pay the same as anyone else.
雅思大作文相关文章：
★ 雅思考试
★ 2020年
