加载中…
加载中…
写作范文库
对比同一题目的两篇范文。
With the development of technology, computer and internet are used in the education more and more1. Some people think that in the future, the technology will replace the teacher. But some people don't think so. I will discuss both views in this essay.
Some people think technology can replace teacher. Because computer have a lot of knowledge2, students can learn everything on the internet. They can watch the video and do the exercise at home, don't need go to school3. Also, online learning is very cheap, poor student also can study. So they think teacher is not necessary in the future.
But other people don't agree. They think teacher is very important and can not be replaced. Teacher not only teach knowledge, but also teach students how to be a good person. When student have problem, teacher can help them and encourage them. Computer can not do this thing, because computer have no feeling.4 So teacher is still important.
In my opinion, I think technology can not replace teacher completely. Technology is only a tool to help teacher and student. Teacher can use technology to make the class more interesting. So I think in the future, teacher and technology will work together, this is the best way5.
Two article errors plus a misplaced adverb. "Computer" and "internet" need determiners ("computers and the internet"), and "in the education" should be "in education" (uncountable, no article). Chinese has no article system, so these slip in constantly — proofread every noun.
两处冠词错误加一个副词位置问题。"Computer" 和 "internet" 需要限定词（"computers and the internet"），而 "in the education" 应为 "in education"（不可数，不加冠词）。汉语没有冠词系统，所以这类错误层出不穷——每个名词都要校对。
Subject-verb agreement ("computers have" or "a computer has") and, more deeply, an idea stated but never examined: computers store information, they do not "have knowledge". The essay asserts the point instead of thinking it through, which caps development at Band 5.
主谓一致问题（"computers have" 或 "a computer has"），更深层的是：观点被提出却没有被推敲——电脑存储的是信息，并不"拥有知识"。文章直接断言，而不去把它想透，这使论证深度停在 5 分档。
A missing infinitive "to" ("don't need to go") and an informal contraction unsuited to academic writing. Band 6+ expects "do not" in this register; contractions and dropped particles read as spoken Chinese-English.
漏了不定式的 "to"（"don't need to go"），而且缩写在学术写作中偏口语。6 分以上要求这种语体用 "do not"；缩写和漏掉的小品词读起来像口语化的中式英语。
The idea — machines lack empathy — is valid, but "this thing" and "have no feeling" are vague, childlike wording. A stronger version names what is missing: emotional support, motivation, the reading of a confused face. Precise nouns are what lift vocabulary out of Band 5.
这个观点——机器缺乏共情——是成立的，但 "this thing" 和 "have no feeling" 用词含糊、幼稚。更有力的写法会点明缺的究竟是什么：情感支持、学习动机、读懂一张困惑的脸。用精确的名词，才能把词汇从 5 分档拉起来。
The conclusion states a preference but never says why blending the two is best. A comma splice also joins it to the previous clause. Band 6+ needs the reason attached, and separate sentences or a proper conjunction.
结论表明了倾向，却没有说明为什么两者结合是最好的。前面还用逗号连接了两个独立句（逗号粘连）。6 分以上需要给出理由，并用句号或恰当的连词分开。
As online courses and learning software grow more capable, a genuine question has emerged about whether they might one day make classroom teachers unnecessary. While some see technology as an eventual replacement, others insist the human teacher is irreplaceable. In my view technology will transform teaching profoundly but will not remove the teacher, because the parts of learning it handles well are only part of what education involves1.
Those who predict replacement have a stronger case than critics often admit2. A well-designed program can explain a concept as clearly as most teachers, repeat it endlessly without impatience, and adjust its pace to each learner. For a motivated student in a country short of qualified staff, this access is transformative, and it is far cheaper than hiring more teachers. Dismissing these advantages as mere convenience underestimates how much routine instruction software can already deliver.
However, this view treats teaching as the transfer of information, when much of a teacher's real work lies elsewhere. Teachers notice when a quiet student has stopped following and intervene before the gap widens; they judge when to push and when to reassure; they model the habits and curiosity that no program can instil. Above all, they hold a class together as a social group, and most young learners simply will not sustain effort without that human relationship. A screen can deliver content, but it cannot make a distracted teenager want to learn.3
The likeliest future, therefore, is not replacement but redistribution. As software takes over routine explanation and marking, teachers are freed to concentrate on exactly the things machines cannot do: motivating, mentoring and responding to individuals. Far from making teachers obsolete, technology may finally let them spend their time where it matters most.
In conclusion, while I accept that technology will reshape the classroom and absorb much of the teaching that machines do efficiently, I do not believe it can replace teachers, because education depends on human judgement and relationships that software cannot reproduce5.
The thesis frames the whole debate: it concedes technology's strength and defines the limit in one line, giving the essay a clear position with built-in nuance. This kind of controlled thesis is a Band 7+ marker.
论点框定了整场辩论：它一句话之内既承认技术的长处，又划定其边界，使文章立场明确又自带思辨。这种有掌控力的论点是 7 分以上的标志。
Hedged, evaluative language. Rather than flatly saying one side is right, the writer weighs how strong each case is — this measured tone is precisely what the Band 5 essay's blunt "some people think... but other people don't agree" lacks.
带有让步与评价色彩的措辞。作者不是断然说哪一方对，而是权衡各方论点的强弱——这种有分寸的语气，正是 5 分作文里生硬的"有人认为……但另一些人不同意"所缺少的。
A precise, concrete contrast that does the work the Band 5 essay only gestured at with "computer have no feeling". Naming the exact thing machines lack — the power to create motivation — is what turns a cliché into an argument.
一个精确而具体的对比，做到了 5 分作文只用"电脑没有感情"含糊带过的事。点明机器究竟缺什么——激发学习动机的能力——正是把陈词滥调变成论证的关键。
The essay resolves the two views with a single reframing (redistribution, not replacement) instead of the Band 5 "work together". It gives the synthesis a precise name and then explains the mechanism, which is what earns the higher band.
文章用一次重新定义（"重新分工"而非"取代"）化解了两种观点，而不是 5 分作文那句"合作"。它给这个综合起了一个精确的名字，随后解释了机制，这正是拿到更高分档的原因。
The conclusion states the reason behind the position, not just the position. Compare the Band 5 close, which asserts blending is "best" without ever saying why — supplying the because is a core Band 7 habit.
结论给出了立场背后的理由，而不只是立场本身。对比 5 分作文的收尾：它断言结合是"最好的"，却始终没说为什么——把"因为"补上，是 7 分的核心习惯。
Both essays discuss both views and conclude that teachers and technology should coexist, so the outline is the same. The Band 7 essay concedes the replacement case at full strength before answering it, names precisely what machines cannot do, and resolves the debate with one sharp reframing (redistribution, not replacement) whose reasoning it spells out. The Band 5.5 essay reaches a similar idea but through vague wording ("this thing", "have no feeling"), asserts points without examining them, and is weighed down by recurring article, agreement and infinitive errors that a Mandarin speaker must hunt for deliberately. To move up, replace vague nouns with the exact thing you mean, attach a reason to every claim, and proofread once solely for articles and verb endings.
两篇文章都讨论了双方观点，也都得出"教师与技术应共存"的结论，所以大纲是一样的。7 分作文先以最强的形式承认"取代"一方，再加以回应，精确点明机器做不到什么，并用一次利落的重新定义（"重新分工"而非"取代"）化解辩论，还把其中的推理讲清楚。5.5 分作文得出了相近的想法，却是通过含糊的措辞（"this thing"、"没有感情"），断言观点却不加推敲，还被反复出现的冠词、主谓一致和不定式错误拖累——说中文的考生必须刻意去找这些错误。要往上走：用你真正想说的那个精确名词替换含糊的名词，给每个论断都接上理由，并且专门校对一遍冠词和动词词尾。