不可否认，雅思考试听说读写四个单项中，老师对于学生帮助最大的单项无疑是写作，这倒不是因为shark教的就是写作才会这么说，而是因为：1. 写作是主观题，没有标准答案，因此很多同学并不知道该如何写出高质量的文章。相反，阅读听力是客观题，做了以后马上可以对答案，考生们只需要稍加思考，就知道自己错在哪里，该如何改正；2. 写作（大作文）中的语料，观点，逻辑，完全可以适用于口语，而且较口语还会更加高级，所以作文的提高对口语的帮助会非常大。
而正是因为如此，很多写作老师在给同学们上课的时候，都是按照自己对于雅思写作的理解去告诉同学们该怎么写（反正学生也不懂）。为了不引起不必要的麻烦，shark在这里不说这些“自己想出来的写法”是否行得通，我只想告诉大家，不管老师怎么教，教的是什么内容，如果没有按照剑桥雅思官方教材的写法去写，那肯定不是最优的写法。
去年出版的剑桥雅思14，是目前为止最新也是最权威的雅思教材。里面只有一篇作文，考官给出了满分的范文。就是 TEST2 的大作文，题目如下：Some people say that the main environmental problem of our time is the loss of particular species of plants and animals. Others say that there are more important environmental problems. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
这道题的难点首先体现在一个单词：main environmental problem 的 main，以下是牛津高阶词典截图。
看清楚了吗？main 是一个绝对词，the most important 的意思！
Discuss both views 的题目中其中一方的观点包含绝对词，是剑桥雅思书上最高频的题目类型，也是雅思考试中最高频的题型，没有之一！这篇满分范文在第131页，强烈建议大家一定要明白这篇文章的写作逻辑！
简单地说就是：不同意题目中包含绝对词的观点（承认其是重要的，但不是最重要的），然后在讨论此观点结束时，引出题目中的另一个观点并展开讨论。请注意，这不是唯一的写法，但这是最新最权威的教材上考官给出的满分范文，你觉得还有比它更值得参考的写法吗？
这是 shark 必定会讲解的题型，而且讲解方式一定是按照剑14 TEST2 这篇满分范文的写法！如果你懂了，请看下面这道题目：Some people think that the best way to reduce time spent on travelling to work is to replace parks and gardens close to the city center with apartment buildings for commuters, but others disagree. Discuss both views and give your opinion. (2019.4.6日考题)
你会发现这两道题完全是异曲同工的，以下是我的一位学生考场7分作文！他采用了跟剑14 TEST2 一样的写法，不同意绝对词。文章是考后回忆，观点、结构和写作逻辑跟考场文章完全一致，语言上可能会有细微差别。Nowadays, the working-class people spend much time commuting from home to work. Some people argue that parks and gardens which are located in the central part of downtown areas should make way for apartment buildings, while others do not agree with this idea. As for me, I think this idea can be regarded as one of the methods to solve this problem, but it is not the best method to help reduce commute time.（shark的话：其实开头段有点啰嗦了）Those who support this idea may argue that these working-class can drive a shorter distance or even ride to work if they can live in apartment building located in the central downtown areas, where a large of number of people are working. Therefore, the can save time on commuting. These people do provide a productive workforce and contribute a lot to the whole society. However, although this method can save commuting time, I do not consider it as the best way to tackle such kind of problem.Those who are against this idea consider that parks and gardens cannot be demolished, as they undoubtedly provide a wonderful platform for residents to do regular exercises and establish new friendship. From their perspective, the governments can improve the subway system, as a great number of people choose to take the subway to work. The faster the subway is, the more time of the commuters can be saved. In addition, the bike-sharing program can also be developed, which is of great significance to those who are not available to buses or subways and those who prefer to walk to those companies.In conclusion, replacing those parks and gardens is not the best way to reduce commute time, while the governments can help solve this problem by improving subway system and developing bike-sharing program.
本站仅提供存储服务，所有内容均由用户发布，如发现有害或侵权内容，请
点击举报。
