載入中…
載入中…
寫作範文庫
比較同一題目的兩篇範文。
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.
兩處冠詞錯誤加一個副詞位置問題。「Computer」和「internet」需要限定詞（「computers and the internet」），而「in the education」應為「in education」（不可數，不加冠詞）。漢語沒有冠詞系統，所以這類錯誤層出不窮——每個名詞都要校對。
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.
主謂一致問題（「computers have」或「a computer has」），更深層的是：觀點被提出卻沒有被推敲——電腦儲存的是資訊，並不「擁有知識」。文章直接斷言，而不去把它想透，這使論證深度停在 5 分檔。
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」），而且縮寫在學術寫作中偏口語。6 分以上要求這種語體用「do not」；縮寫和漏掉的小品詞讀起來像口語化的中式英語。
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.
這個觀點——機器缺乏共情——是成立的，但「this thing」和「have no feeling」用詞含糊、幼稚。更有力的寫法會點明缺的究竟是什麼：情感支持、學習動機、讀懂一張困惑的臉。用精確的名詞，才能把詞彙從 5 分檔拉起來。
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.
結論表明了傾向，卻沒有說明為什麼兩者結合是最好的。前面還用逗號連接了兩個獨立句（逗號黏連）。6 分以上需要給出理由，並用句號或恰當的連詞分開。
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.
論點框定了整場辯論：它一句話之內既承認技術的長處，又劃定其邊界，使文章立場明確又自帶思辨。這種有掌控力的論點是 7 分以上的標誌。
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.
帶有讓步與評價色彩的措辭。作者不是斷然說哪一方對，而是權衡各方論點的強弱——這種有分寸的語氣，正是 5 分作文裡生硬的「有人認為……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.
一個精確而具體的對比，做到了 5 分作文只用「電腦沒有感情」含糊帶過的事。點明機器究竟缺什麼——激發學習動機的能力——正是把陳詞濫調變成論證的關鍵。
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.
文章用一次重新定義（「重新分工」而非「取代」）化解了兩種觀點，而不是 5 分作文那句「合作」。它給這個綜合起了一個精確的名字，隨後解釋了機制，這正是拿到更高分檔的原因。
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.
結論給出了立場背後的理由，而不只是立場本身。對比 5 分作文的收尾：它斷言結合是「最好的」，卻始終沒說為什麼——把「因為」補上，是 7 分的核心習慣。
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.
兩篇文章都討論了雙方觀點，也都得出「教師與技術應共存」的結論，所以大綱是一樣的。7 分作文先以最強的形式承認「取代」一方，再加以回應，精確點明機器做不到什麼，並用一次俐落的重新定義（「重新分工」而非「取代」）化解辯論，還把其中的推理講清楚。5.5 分作文得出了相近的想法，卻是通過含糊的措辭（「this thing」、「沒有感情」），斷言觀點卻不加推敲，還被反覆出現的冠詞、主謂一致和不定式錯誤拖累——說中文的考生必須刻意去找這些錯誤。要往上走：用你真正想說的那個精確名詞替換含糊的名詞，給每個論斷都接上理由，並且專門校對一遍冠詞和動詞詞尾。