本场托福考试，ETS出了一道难度偏高的现象解释类题目。现象解释类的难点在于文内较为复杂的因果、并列等逻辑关系。考生在听听力时，需要注意文章中的信号词，理清听力细节之间的关联。
TPO中现象解释类综合写作有：TPO23，27，29，32，34，35，49等，都和本期考题有相似之处。因此，TPO仍然是考生备战综合写作的重要资料。
Keywords: handmade stone basin, volcanic water, liter, bedrock, salinity等
可以类比下列这些TPO的综合写作。
TPO27 Little Ice Age
阅读部分：
总观点：关于小冰期产生的原因，科学家给出了三种理论：
• 冰川融化进墨西哥湾洋流（Gulf Stream）；
• 火山爆发，火山灰（volcanic ash）遮蔽阳光；
• 人口减少，树木变多，吸收了二氧化碳。
听力反驳：
这三个理论都错误。
• 墨西哥湾洋流只影响北美和欧洲的天气，但是南半球也发生了温度降低的现象；
• 只有极大的火山爆发才能导致小冰期产生，但是当时没有极强的火山爆发相关记录；
• 人口减少的时期很短。人口快速恢复后，树又被砍掉了。
TPO34 Steller’s Sea Cow
阅读部分：
总观点：关于Steller’s Sea Cow灭绝的原因，科学家给出了三种理论：
• 本地人过度捕猎；
• 生态紊乱导致Steller’s Sea Cow的主要食物来源kelp灭绝；
• 欧洲皮草交易商过度捕猎。
听力反驳：
这三个理论都错误。
• 本地人口少，Sea Cow体型巨大，本地人不需要捕捉那么多Sea Cow；
• 如果有生态紊乱，其他的海洋生物也会有数量下降，但是没有。这说明没有生态紊乱；
• 欧洲皮草交易商到达当地时，Sea Cow数量已经很少了。
•
有一些表达在现象解释类的综合写作中非常常见，考生需要掌握以下高频词汇：
² 解释（account for, attribute to, responsible for）
² 假说（hypothesis, assumption, theory, possibilities）
²
题目解析：
9月27日的独立写作是一道非常比较友好的题目。教育类话题一直是托福独立写作的高频话题，考生往往也有许多相关经验。本体的难度在于：，考题限定了年龄范围，要考虑这个年龄段学生的学习科目和特质等；第二，同意与否都比较好切入的考题，列提纲时不要纠结，选择较好完成的角度快速开始答题即可。
本题同意的理由可以写（1）便于有针对性地教学（2）减少重复内容（3）学生心理压力小等。不同意的理由可以写（1）难以判断是否处于同一水平（2）需要根据学生的学习情况定期调整班级，比较麻烦（3）不同水平的学生之间可以相互学习，取长补短等。
Secondary education is critical to one’s academic development and character building. Therefore, governments and schools have implemented various policies to improve it. Some experts believe that teaching can be more efficient and effective when students with different foundation are divided into different classes. However, I believe such a measure is neither practical nor motivating.
Admittedly, it sounds attractive that a teacher can achieve teaching aims more easily when his students are at similar levels. This is because he can skip the parts students have already grasped and focus on new knowledge and skills. However, in the real world, it is extremely difficult to tell whether certain teenagers are at the same academic level. Some schools might set entrance exams before semesters. The problem is, students might obtain similar scores or fail to answer the same questions for different reasons. Some kids might just lack test skills: it is possible that they allocate time unwisely or don’t pay attention to key words in the questions. In the meantime, other students might be poor at the knowledge itself. If these teenagers are included in the same class, their teacher still have to explain certain knowledge and theories obtained by a part of the students. Under this circumstance, the efficiency cannot be improved as largely as advocators think.
Furthermore, even if schools find a way to separate students apart based on their achievement in a certain subject, such grouping is less motivating than ordinary class. It is true that some teenagers will suffer great pressure when they find themselves below average. Nevertheless, with proper guidance, they can be encouraged to work hard and learn from the top students. As to the leading students, sense of achievement will be generated when their classmates turn to them for help. Adolescents are complicated; they want to both fit in with a group and stand out from crowd. Therefore, in many cases, peers are more influential to a teenager than his parents or teachers. Since I was a kid, my parents and English teachers had kept saying speaking English well would benefit me greatly in the future, but I didn’t exert myself until grade 10. Kiara, a girl in my class that year, spoke such beautiful English that everyone, including me, wanted to know how she did it and learned from her. Had my school divided students into different classes based on academic skills, I would not have met Kiara and endeavored to improve myself that hard.
All in all, fancy as it sounds, grouping students based on their skills is not only unrealistic but also fails to encourage students.
