在上了一段時間雅思課程或者參加過考試后，很多同學(xué)往往認(rèn)為小作文比大作文容易提高，原因是“套路”比較多，今天小編給大家?guī)砹搜潘即笞魑牡降子袥]有套路可言,希望能夠幫助到大家，一起來學(xué)習(xí)吧。

雅思大作文到底有沒有套路可言

首先要回答的問題是，雅思大作文一般分幾段?答案：建議四到五段，也就是主體段兩到三段。再多或再少都不合適。再少，主體不分段，文章邏輯感不強，沒有達(dá)到coherence and cohesion的評分標(biāo)準(zhǔn);再多，在本身大作文字?jǐn)?shù)不多的情況下，往往意味著沒有一個分論點或主體段拓展充分。

以一個簡單的題目為例，具體講講每個段落怎么寫或者如何應(yīng)用“套路”。

例題：

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)

首先關(guān)于開頭段，我在不同分?jǐn)?shù)段的班級所教授的方法有所不同。

在6.5分強化班，我會大致介紹典型學(xué)術(shù)議論文開頭段有兩個主要目的：

1. 介紹引出話題，也就是讓讀者自然進(jìn)入話題，而不要突兀地在開頭寫“I totally agree/disagree with it.”

2. 亮明主旨概要

對于agree/disagree類型大作文，其實就是點出作者傾向;而對于其他類型的大作文，是告知讀者本文的目的所在，例如“… has both positive and negative outcomes”。這一目的是選做的，也就是開頭不寫作者立場完全可以。

在5.5分班，有同學(xué)初次接觸這類型作文，經(jīng)常一提筆就語塞，怎么也寫不出第一句話。針對這種情況，就推薦由三句話組成的一個更簡單的模版：第一句“大背景”，可以寫任何和該話題有關(guān)的內(nèi)容，例如很多同學(xué)喜歡寫的時代背景。就這題而言，“With the process of urbanization, an increasing numberof people move to big cities to seek for better work and educationalopportunities.”當(dāng)然，套路的副作用是很多同學(xué)千篇一律的開頭“Nowadays”。而更有創(chuàng)意的寫法會令考官耳目一新，例如有人改寫了錢鐘書的名言，“大城市就像個圍城，里面的人想要出去，外面的人想要進(jìn)來……”

最后在7分班，追求高分的終極目標(biāo)必然是接近natives，所以模仿考官范文是必不可少的。這時大家會發(fā)現(xiàn)，考官的范文幾乎沒有任何固定套路可言，只要心中有“譜”，落筆就可以自然地行云流水，絲毫不受套路的桎梏。需要提醒的是，不要寫典型中國式的“假大空”的話，首當(dāng)其沖的就是“With the development of society”。理由是社會的發(fā)展是個很寬泛的概念，老外根本無法和人們?nèi)コ鞘猩盥?lián)系起來，也就是英文寫作需要越具體越直接越好。

接下來主體段，典型議論文一個opinion paragraph 至少包含一個鮮明的分論點，而且以主題句形式放在段落偏前位置。什么樣的句子適合充當(dāng)主題句呢?依然以這個話題為例，傾向agree的三位同學(xué)各想了一句話，請看誰的更適合作為topic sentence?

哪句更適合做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.

事實上三位說的都沒問題，但相比而言A更適合。也就是說，主題句并非越長或越短越好，而是最直接回答原題，且是這段文字統(tǒng)領(lǐng)性的話。

接下來圍繞主題句，拓展解釋部分就稱為支持句supporting sentences。常用的拓展方法包括因果法(此時就可以把B和C放里頭)，還有對比論證法(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.)以及例證法(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，支持句是緊密圍繞主題句，對其進(jìn)行展開的，切不可出現(xiàn)支持句“寫飛了”的情況。例如某同學(xué)想要論證“奧運會的一個好處是給舉辦國帶來經(jīng)濟(jì)受益”。后面寫的卻是“隨著奧運會的舉行，世界各國游客紛紛涌入。他們會在當(dāng)?shù)刭徺I東西，這樣也方便我國傳播文化，提升我國在國際社會的地位”。所有不是直接解釋“經(jīng)濟(jì)受益”的內(nèi)容都是多余，屬于邏輯凌亂，也就是議論文寫作不要“over-ambitious”，一個論點充分論證后再寫下一個論點。而論點之間彼此應(yīng)該是相互平行或遞進(jìn)的關(guān)系，不應(yīng)該出現(xiàn)彼此包含，甚至repetitive的情況。

最后在有限的時間里，如何快速完成大作文結(jié)尾段呢?對于所剩時間非常少的同學(xué)，兩個任務(wù)可以就完成。

第一個：總結(jié)全文觀點，重申立場。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. 這也是最不費神，比較好寫的方法。

而時間沒有那么倉促的同學(xué)，可以在第一個任務(wù)之后適當(dāng)升華主題。升華的方法有很多，包括提個建議(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.), 或是展望未來(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，結(jié)尾段自己的立場一定要鮮明，也就是不要出現(xiàn)“反水”的情況，在最后突然倒戈支持對立方。

所以總結(jié)來說，大作文有套路的地方包括：議論文的一般段落組成(有別于散文)、語言風(fēng)格(正式語言、完整句子)、常用拓展技巧(因果法、例證法、對比法...);而需要大家自由發(fā)揮的內(nèi)容包括：觀點(沒有對錯之分)、拓展內(nèi)容(說清楚就行)、段落結(jié)構(gòu)(單邊論證或讓步與反駁論證都沒關(guān)系)。同學(xué)們在掌握這些基本套路之后，就可以盡情地發(fā)揮創(chuàng)意、各抒己見!

雅思寫作Task2社會類考官范文

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.

雅思寫作Task2社會類考官范文

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.