托福口語敘述需要避免的5個誤區解讀, 這些錯誤還請引起重視。今天小編給大家帶來了托福口語敘述需要避免的5個誤區解讀,希望能夠幫助到大家，下面小編就和大家分享，來欣賞一下吧。

托福口語敘述需要避免的5個誤區解讀 這些錯誤還請引起重視

1、不能停頓

有些同學以為，要想拿高分，我必須說得特別快，不要有停頓。事實并非如此。

停頓的要義在于不打破句子意思，讓聽眾不需要重組意群才是關鍵。如果停頓導致聽眾需要努力才能聽懂這就不對了。所以，不是說口語不能停，你可以停，但要停的恰當，不影響表達就可以。

2、說的越多越好

托福口語評分標準三是口語表達。

一篇關于托福的研究報告中，統計了答題字數，發現獨立口語滿分考生最多使用過200詞，在45秒內答完，而使用詞匯最少的滿分同學回答只有短短71詞，45秒鐘說好71個詞就可以拿口語滿分。如此看來，一味追求答題字數是不對的。

要準備”好“的內容，而非”長“的內容。

3、標新立異

ETS考官在考試結束后要連續評分4個小時，聽一遍立馬給分，反復聽無數考生的答案，如果要追求標新立異，那你可就走偏了。

有些不負責任的老師要求考生標新立異，以求脫穎而出給考官留下印象，實際上托福口語評分標準要求給出了非常清楚的解釋：口語表達明白，聽懂了就可以。

而且很多考生在考場上短短15秒思考時間內根本沒有好的想法，還要逼迫自己，想不出來，答題只回斷斷續續話不成篇，反而分數更低。

4、錯誤展開

托福口語評分標準一是觀點的展開與發展。很多同學沒有做過邏輯訓練，強行展開，造成了考官的疑惑不解。

比如，有個問題是：“你喜歡在快餐店吃飯還是餐廳吃飯?為什么?”同學回答說：“去快餐店好，因為去了點薯條，周圍還有三家店”。這種回答問題出現在沒有邏輯。為什么要點薯條?考生沒有提真正原因，沒有抓住重點。

5、大量使用難詞

托福口語評分標準第二條是語言使用。

在口語中使用一些高難詞(所謂的“Fancy words”)，被一些考生認為是高分必殺技。實際上在對托福高分回答的分析中，85%的口語高分考生使用了常見的1000個詞匯，從這里可以看出高分同學使用的詞匯并非高難詞匯。一味追求高難詞的做法走偏了。

托福口語話題科技素材整理

Some people believe that modern technology has made our lives simpler. Others believethat modern technology has made our lives more complicated. What is your opinion?

讓我們首先一起來閱讀這篇On science and good life.

既可以積累素材，也可以激發靈感：

There is probably no limit to what science can do in the way of increasing positive excellence. Health has already been greatly improved; in spite of the lamentations of those who idealize the past, we live longer and have fewer illnesses than any class or nation in the eighteenth century. With a little more application of the knowledge we already possess, we might be much healthier than we are. And future discoveries are likely to accelerate this process enormously.

科學在增加美好的積極因素方面所能做的事情，很可能是沒有止境的。衛生條件已經得到極大的改善;不管那些懷舊者如何哀嘆，與十八世紀任何階級和民族相比，我們畢竟延長了壽命并減少了疾病。只要把我們已有的知識稍加廣泛地應用，我們就會比現在更加健康。未來的發現很可能會極大地加快這方面的進程。

So far, it has been physical science that has had most effect upon our lives, but in the future physiology and psychology are likely to be far more potent. When we have discovered how character depends upon physiological conditions, we shall be able, if we choose, to produce far more of the type of human beings that we admire. Intelligence, artistic capacity, benevolence—all these things no doubt could be increased by science. There seems scarcely any limit to what could be done in the way of producing a good world, if only men would use science wisely.

迄今為止，對我們生活影響最大的當數自然科學，但是在將來，生理學和心理學的影響很可能遠在它之上。當我們發現了性格如何依賴于生理條件時，只要我們愿意，我們就能產生出大量我們所稱羨的那種人。智力，藝術能力，仁慈---所有這些東西無疑可因科學而增加。只要人們明智地利用科學，在創造美好世界方面所能做的事情，幾乎是沒有止境的。

There is a certain attitude about the application of science to human life with which I have some sympathy, though I do not, in the last analysis, agree with it. It is the attitude of those who dread what is ‘unnatural.’ Rousseau is, of course, the great protagonist of the view in Europe. In Asia, Lao-Tze has set it forth even more persuasively, and 2400 years sooner. I think there is a mixture of truth and falsehood in the admiration of ‘nature, which it is important to disentangle. To begin with, what is ‘natural?’ Roughly speaking, anything to which the speaker was accustomed in childhood. Lao-Tze objects to roads and carriages and boats, all of which were probably unknown in the village where he was born

關于科學應用到人生這個問題，存在著一種觀點，對這種觀點，我有些同感，但是最后分析起來，我是不能同意的。 它是那些害怕‘不自然的’東西的人所持有的觀點。當然，盧梭是歐洲這一觀點的偉大創始人。在亞洲，老子對這一觀點的闡述，更是動人心弦，而且要早兩千四百年。我認為，他們對于‘自然’的贊美，不過是真理與謬誤的混合物，而理清這一問題是很重要的。首先要問，什么東西是‘自然的?’泛泛說來，是說話者幼年時所習慣的東西。老子反對車道和舟車，這恐怕是他所出生的那個村子不知車道和舟車為何物的緣故。

Rousseau has got used to these things, and does not regard them as against nature. But he would no doubt have thundered against railways if he had lived to see them. Clothes and cooking are too ancient to be denounced by most of the apostles of nature, though they all object to new fashions in either. Birth control is thought wicked by people who tolerate celibacy, because the former is a new violation of nature and the latter an ancient one. In these ways those who preach ‘nature’ are inconsistent, and one is tempted to regard them as mere conservatives.

盧梭對這些東西習以為常，所以并不認為它們是違反自然的。但是，假如他在有生之年看見鐵路，他無疑會大加指責。服裝和烹飪由來已久，大多數提倡自然的人都不提出異議，雖然它們一致反對花樣翻新。節育被當成犯罪，而獨身則被寬容，因為前者是違反自然的新事物，而后者則古已有之。在所有這些方面，那些提倡‘自然’的人都是自相矛盾的，這只能使人把它們看成是守舊之士。

Nevertheless, there is something to be said in their favor. Take for instance vitamins, the discovery of which has produced a revulsion in favor of ‘natural’ foods. It seems, however, that vitamins can be supplied by cod-liver oil and electric light, which are certainly not part of the ‘natural’ diet of a human being. This case illustrates that, in the absence of knowledge, unexpected harm may be done by a new departure from nature, but when the harm has come to be understood it can usually be remedied by some new artificiality. As regards our physical environment and our physical means of gratifying our desires, I do not think the doctrine of ‘nature’ justifies anything beyond a certain experimental caution in the adoption of new expedients. Clothes, for instance, are contrary to nature, and need to be supplemented by another unnatural practice, namely washing, if they are not to bring disease. But the two practices together make a man healthier than the savage who eschews both.

然而，他們并非一無是處。例如，維生素的發現使人們復而贊成‘自然的’食物。不過，維生素似乎也可由魚肝油和電光提供，此二者無疑不是人類‘自然的’食物。這個例子表明，如果缺少知識，一種違反自然的新做法也許會帶來意想不到的危害，但是當那危害被認識到時，往往可以用某種新的人造物去補救。就我們的自然環境和滿足我們欲望的物質手段而言，我認為，有關‘自然’的這套理論，除了證明在采取某種新的做法時應謹慎外，并不能證明別的什么。例如，衣服是違反自然的，如果不想讓衣服引起疾病，就需要增加另一種不自然的行為，即洗滌。但是，穿衣與洗滌加在一起卻可使人比與此二者無緣的野蠻人要健康。

托福口語話題科技素材

Some people believe that modern technology has made our lives simpler. Others believethat modern technology has made our lives more complicated. What is your opinion?

讓我們首先一起來閱讀這篇On science and good life.

既可以積累素材，也可以激發靈感：

There is probably no limit to what science can do in the way of increasing positive excellence. Health has already been greatly improved; in spite of the lamentations of those who idealize the past, we live longer and have fewer illnesses than any class or nation in the eighteenth century. With a little more application of the knowledge we already possess, we might be much healthier than we are. And future discoveries are likely to accelerate this process enormously.

科學在增加美好的積極因素方面所能做的事情，很可能是沒有止境的。衛生條件已經得到極大的改善;不管那些懷舊者如何哀嘆，與十八世紀任何階級和民族相比，我們畢竟延長了壽命并減少了疾病。只要把我們已有的知識稍加廣泛地應用，我們就會比現在更加健康。未來的發現很可能會極大地加快這方面的進程。

So far, it has been physical science that has had most effect upon our lives, but in the future physiology and psychology are likely to be far more potent. When we have discovered how character depends upon physiological conditions, we shall be able, if we choose, to produce far more of the type of human beings that we admire. Intelligence, artistic capacity, benevolence—all these things no doubt could be increased by science. There seems scarcely any limit to what could be done in the way of producing a good world, if only men would use science wisely.

迄今為止，對我們生活影響最大的當數自然科學，但是在將來，生理學和心理學的影響很可能遠在它之上。當我們發現了性格如何依賴于生理條件時，只要我們愿意，我們就能產生出大量我們所稱羨的那種人。智力，藝術能力，仁慈---所有這些東西無疑可因科學而增加。只要人們明智地利用科學，在創造美好世界方面所能做的事情，幾乎是沒有止境的。

There is a certain attitude about the application of science to human life with which I have some sympathy, though I do not, in the last analysis, agree with it. It is the attitude of those who dread what is ‘unnatural.’ Rousseau is, of course, the great protagonist of the view in Europe. In Asia, Lao-Tze has set it forth even more persuasively, and 2400 years sooner. I think there is a mixture of truth and falsehood in the admiration of ‘nature, which it is important to disentangle. To begin with, what is ‘natural?’ Roughly speaking, anything to which the speaker was accustomed in childhood. Lao-Tze objects to roads and carriages and boats, all of which were probably unknown in the village where he was born

關于科學應用到人生這個問題，存在著一種觀點，對這種觀點，我有些同感，但是最后分析起來，我是不能同意的。 它是那些害怕‘不自然的’東西的人所持有的觀點。當然，盧梭是歐洲這一觀點的偉大創始人。在亞洲，老子對這一觀點的闡述，更是動人心弦，而且要早兩千四百年。我認為，他們對于‘自然’的贊美，不過是真理與謬誤的混合物，而理清這一問題是很重要的。首先要問，什么東西是‘自然的?’泛泛說來，是說話者幼年時所習慣的東西。老子反對車道和舟車，這恐怕是他所出生的那個村子不知車道和舟車為何物的緣故。

Rousseau has got used to these things, and does not regard them as against nature. But he would no doubt have thundered against railways if he had lived to see them. Clothes and cooking are too ancient to be denounced by most of the apostles of nature, though they all object to new fashions in either. Birth control is thought wicked by people who tolerate celibacy, because the former is a new violation of nature and the latter an ancient one. In these ways those who preach ‘nature’ are inconsistent, and one is tempted to regard them as mere conservatives.

盧梭對這些東西習以為常，所以并不認為它們是違反自然的。但是，假如他在有生之年看見鐵路，他無疑會大加指責。服裝和烹飪由來已久，大多數提倡自然的人都不提出異議，雖然它們一致反對花樣翻新。節育被當成犯罪，而獨身則被寬容，因為前者是違反自然的新事物，而后者則古已有之。在所有這些方面，那些提倡‘自然’的人都是自相矛盾的，這只能使人把它們看成是守舊之士。

Nevertheless, there is something to be said in their favor. Take for instance vitamins, the discovery of which has produced a revulsion in favor of ‘natural’ foods. It seems, however, that vitamins can be supplied by cod-liver oil and electric light, which are certainly not part of the ‘natural’ diet of a human being. This case illustrates that, in the absence of knowledge, unexpected harm may be done by a new departure from nature, but when the harm has come to be understood it can usually be remedied by some new artificiality. As regards our physical environment and our physical means of gratifying our desires, I do not think the doctrine of ‘nature’ justifies anything beyond a certain experimental caution in the adoption of new expedients. Clothes, for instance, are contrary to nature, and need to be supplemented by another unnatural practice, namely washing, if they are not to bring disease. But the two practices together make a man healthier than the savage who eschews both.

然而，他們并非一無是處。例如，維生素的發現使人們復而贊成‘自然的’食物。不過，維生素似乎也可由魚肝油和電光提供，此二者無疑不是人類‘自然的’食物。這個例子表明，如果缺少知識，一種違反自然的新做法也許會帶來意想不到的危害，但是當那危害被認識到時，往往可以用某種新的人造物去補救。就我們的自然環境和滿足我們欲望的物質手段而言，我認為，有關‘自然’的這套理論，除了證明在采取某種新的做法時應謹慎外，并不能證明別的什么。例如，衣服是違反自然的，如果不想讓衣服引起疾病，就需要增加另一種不自然的行為，即洗滌。但是，穿衣與洗滌加在一起卻可使人比與此二者無緣的野蠻人要健康。