考情速递｜2025年4月23日托福机经出炉！

学术讨论：

一、Dr. Achebe:

In many countries, the standard workweek consists of eight hours of work each day for five days per week. Now, though, some people advocate a shorter workweek: a four-day workweek with no decrease in workers' pay. There are advantages and disadvantages to this of course. What is your opinion about instituting a shorter, four-day workweek, and why?

Andrew:

I like that idea, but on one condition: that the workday is no longer than eight hours. have heard some plans require ten hours a day for a four-day week. Most employees would find that exhausting, and it could actually be counterproductive to tire out your workers. Yes to four-day weeks, but no to ten-hour days!

Claire:

In my country, the workweek is Monday to Friday plus half a day on Saturday, so moving to a four-day workweek would be too drastic a change! Workers might struggle to complete their tasks in a four-day workweek. It seems less stressful to spread work out over more days rather than trying to condense it all into a shorter week.

思路：

Pros of a Four-Day Workweek:

1. Enhanced Well-Being:

1) Employees gain more personal time, improving work-life balance and mental health. Studies (e.g., Iceland’s trials) show reduced burnout and higher job satisfaction.

2) Potential long-term savings for employers through lower healthcare costs and absenteeism.

2. Productivity Gains:

Focused work and reduced fatigue can maintain or boost productivity, as seen in trials where output remained stable despite fewer hours.

3. Environmental and Economic Benefits:

1) Reduced commuting lowers carbon emissions. Companies save on operational costs (e.g., utilities).

2) Increased leisure time might stimulate spending in hospitality, travel, and retail sectors.

4. Talent Attraction/Retention:

A shorter week serves as a competitive perk, attracting talent and reducing turnover.

二、Doctor Diaz:（重复2024.4.13日考题）

Starting this week, we are going to discuss the effect that pollution has on our environment. Specifically, we will focus on the pollution of waterways, which has caused significant health problems around the world. Large amounts of plastics, industrial waste, and trash pollute the oceans and rivers. I want you to consider the following question: How much can individuals help solve the water pollution problem compared with large institutions such as corporations and governments? Please explain your position.

Andrew：

Individual efforts will likely have little effect. It is better to focus on large corporations that do the most damage to our waterways. Think of the oil companies that have spills and factory owners that dump chemicals into the waterways. Individuals pollute the water too, but companies have much more impact. Business leaders need to set examples for the community.

Claire：

I think individual people are the first step in solving the pollution problem. For example, when one person stops using harmful chemicals or helps clean up a local waterway, it can inspire others. They can use social media to spread the word and share examples of positive behavior. This

can quickly become a grassroots movement for change.

思路：

1. Individual Contributions(Behavioral Changes)

Reducing Pollutants: Individuals can minimize household chemicals, plastics, and micro-plastics (e.g., synthetic fibers) entering waterways by using eco-friendly products, properly disposing of waste, and avoiding single-use plastics.  

2. Water Conservation: Fixing leaks, using water-efficient appliances, and reducing runoff from lawns (e.g., avoiding pesticides) directly lowers pollution.  

3. Advocacy: Public pressure through petitions, protests, or voting can push governments and corporations to adopt stricter environmental policies.  

三、Doctor Diaz:

In the next few weeks, we'll be talking about urban traffic management. Let's begin by discussing one popular idea--creating car-free central zones. Some cities around the world have recently designated their downtown areas as being automobile-free which means that vehicles are not allowed to enter the city centers. Do you think that more cities should make their central zones car-free? Why and why not?

Claire:

I support the idea of establishing car-free central zones because this will result in one important benefit for city residents-it will be better for their health. Instead of driving everywhere, people will be encouraged to walk or cycle more. It would be a great way to incorporate exercise into people's routines.

Paul:

It sounds like a good idea, but I'm skeptical. My main concern is that many businesses located in the city centers, such as shops and restaurants, may suffer because the customers will no longer be able to reach those businesses by car. For some customers, if they can not drive, they won't go at all.

思路：

1. Environmental Benefits:

Reduced Emissions: Traffic is a major contributor to urban air pollution and greenhouse gases. Car-free zones cut tailpipe emissions, improving air quality and aligning with climate goals.  

Noise Pollution: Removing cars creates quieter, more peaceful urban spaces.  

2. Public Health Improvements:

1) Lower rates of respiratory illnesses (e.g., asthma) and stress-related conditions due to cleaner air and safer streets.  

2) Encourages walking and cycling, promoting physical activity.  

3. Revitalized Public Spaces:

1) Streets become hubs for pedestrians, outdoor dining, markets, and cultural events, fostering community interaction.  

2) Cities like Copenhagen and Barcelona have shown that pedestrian zones boost local businesses and tourism.  

4. Safety Enhancements:

Fewer cars mean fewer accidents. Pedestrians and cyclists—especially children and the elderly—are safer.  

5. Economic Upsides:

Contrary to fears, studies (e.g., in London and Oslo) show foot traffic in car-free zones often increases retail spending.  

6. Climate Resilience:

Reduced asphalt and heat from engines mitigate the urban heat island effect. Green spaces can replace parking lots.  

综合写作一：

主题：会移动的石头 (sailing stones)三个理论

阅读部分：

1. 石头是被大风移动的(When it rains, the playa’s muddy floor becomes slick and slippery. Under such conditions, powerful gusts of wind could give the stones a considerable push.)

2. 石头是被大型的冰层移动的(Large and thick ice sheets would be able to drag along even heavy stones trapped within them.)

3. 人们故意将石头移走(People move the stones as part of an elaborate joke.)

听力部分：

1. 石头会在muddy floor中留下很深的凹槽 (grooves)，这意味着石头是被推动的，而不是滑动，所以即使强风也无法移动它们(You will need a lot of force to push 300 kilograms stones through playa’s muddy floor, and it is unlikely that even powerful winds have enough force to do that.)

2. 沙漠中水量少；低温时间不够长，无法形成厚的冰层(First, it’s a desert area, so there’s only a small volume of ground water available. The temperature typically does not stay below freezing long enough.)

3. 研究人员并没有在沙漠中发现任何人类或者动物，比如马的脚印(Researchers have never found human footprints, or the footprints of a pack animal like a horse that can drag the stones.)

综合写作二：

主题：Benefits of Beaver Dams

阅读: 

beaver dams对人和环境都有很多好处

1. 它们增加了社区可用的水量.

2. 增加了它们所在地区的生物多样性.

3. 可以将河流变成某些类型鱼类的理想栖息地.

听力: 

1. 首先, beaver dams确实会增加当地的水供应, 但它们有时也会造成洪水。beavers经常在culverts前建造dams。 Culverts是在道路或铁路下方建造的special tunnels, 位于道路或铁路穿过溪流或小河的地方。culverts允许水流从道路下方通过. 但当beaver dams堵塞culverts时, 水流无法通过tunnels, 可能会flood上方的道路, 损坏道路甚至附近的房屋. 

2. 树木可能会受到它们的影响. beavers通过咬穿树干并利用木材建造dams来伤害一些树木. beaver dams会形成被称为beaver ponds的池塘. 这些新形成的池塘可能会淹没树木的根部, 如果树木的根部在水下停留时间过长, 树木就会死亡. 

3. 最后, 的确，beaver dams can benefit fish, but it is not always the case. beaver dams可能伤害鱼类的一种方式是创造一个障碍, 阻止鱼类向前游动. 海狸坝通常会在树枝之间形成通道. 然而, 如果水流的力量不足以推动鱼类通过, 鱼类可能会被困在海狸坝后面. 海狸水坝会使水变脏, 这对幼鱼特别有害.

综合写作三：

主题：Whether Phoenicians were the first people to sail around Africa

阅读部分：

1. 技术手段不足以支持航海。

2. 古埃及人对于航海不感兴趣，没有理由花钱雇人去。

3. 当时编造航海故事很流行，所以这个故事可能是虚构的。

听力部分：

1. 科学家最近按照当时造船的材料和技术, 仿造出来了一条类似的船, 并且成功环绕非洲航行。

2. Necho II对航海探索很感兴趣, 他把很多水路都通过运河连接在一起为了海上贸易, 他也有可能命令水手去环绕非洲, 因为他想找到新的贸易伙伴。

3. 这个故事不太可能是编造出来的。水手对于太阳位置的描述, 编造对他们来说比较困难, 所以大概率是他们真的观察到了这个现象。