2020年最后一次综合写作是考古类话题--巨石阵的石头运输方式，阅读部分信息抓取比较容易，听力部分整体比较友好。在这里补充一点巨石阵的背景知识。1.巨石阵的岩石类别不同，有sarsen和bluestone。在2020年7月英国布莱顿大学的戴维纳什（David Nash）领导的研究小组确定了建造巨石阵的52个大石块中的50个的来源，bluestones来自于约200公里处的Wales, sarsens来自于约25公里的West Woods。2. 据猜测巨石阵的用途主要有4种，古代祭祀场所、王室墓地、天文观测台、康复治疗中心。考古类话题在TPO中不算少见，一般都是考察用途，例如TPO25和TPO33。
TPO25 vessels used as electric batteries
阅读部分：
总观点：土罐不可能用作电池：
• 土罐出土地点附近没有发现金属导体；
• 该土罐和另一地点发现的器皿相似，但另一处器皿是用来装卷轴的；
• 古人没有能用电的设备；
听力反驳：
• 可能存在导体，但是被当地人民忽略或者扔了；
• 很可能最初器皿是用作装卷轴的，后来被人们用作电池；
• 古人可能把电池视为魔力或者用于治疗。
TPO33 Carved Stone Balls
阅读部分：
总观点：雕刻石球的3个可能的用途：
• 打猎战斗的武器；
• 称重的参考标准；
• 社会地位的象征；
听力反驳：
• 石球表面完好，没有使用磨损破裂的痕迹；
• 尺寸确实一致，但是石球的材质不同，重量不一致；
• 大多数石球的纹路过于朴素；没有在陪葬品里出现，不太可能象征着高地位。
题目解析：
12月20日的独立写作重复了2015年8月22日的旧题。题目包含了词the most effective，这类题目写的文章结构是先承认合理性，再反驳性。结构一：段写涨电费油钱确实能实现节能；第二段写然而有其他更有效的方法来实现鼓励节能。那我们也可以考虑把油费和电费分开写2段，第3段再提更好的节能举措。结构二：段写涨油钱确实能减少碳排放节能，但是对于已经购车的人来说不开车是资源闲置浪费，选其他交通方式出行是更浪费时间的；第二段写涨电费在节能上有效果但是可能引发其他能源浪费；第三段写有其他更有效的方法例如强制使用低能耗的产品来实现鼓励节能。
Faced with finite and diminishing energy resources, the government has to take some countermeasures to conserve energy. When it comes to one particular method of increasing the price of gasoline and electricity, my viewpoint is that it will work to some extent but should not be regarded as the most effective means.
First of all, the higher price of gasoline will spur some commuters to give up their private cars. It is estimated that when the expense of gasoline accounts for more than a quarter of an individual’s income every month, at least half of the middle class will panic, not to mention the unprivileged. What those people prefer will be walking, bicycling, public transportation or carpool services, which will help reduce carbon emissions and save gasoline. However, several side effects should not be ignored. For one thing, it is a waste of resources if car-owners have to leave their cars in the community garage. Also it is not always easy and efficient for one to find a companion to share a car. Moreover, taking public vehicles is more time-wasting since buses and subways are usually slower than cars. Thus, it is very likely that people will be discouraged from supporting the policy of lifting gas price.
Besides, increasing the price of electricity to save energy might be counterproductive. It is true that some people who are reluctant to pay higher electricity bill might use less household appliances such as vacuum cleaners, washing machines and air conditioners. Take my uncle as an example. He rarely wastes electricity. This good habit truly saves him a huge amount of annual electricity bill, but at the cost of more energy waste. That is because he burns cheaper coal to cook and keep warm. When I actually do the math, although he uses less electricity, he consumes more fossil fuels. There are many similar cases around the world. In a word, if the government increases electricity price, the more affordable natural gas or coal will be more and more popular, resulting in more energy consumption.
Finally, compared with electricity and gasoline price rise, the government is supposed to enforce using energy-saving products everywhere. Officials can analyze all types of products, find out the most eco-friendly ones and popularize their use. For instance, nowadays many houses and malls are still using halogen bulbs and incandescent bulbs, whose energy consumption is about 10 times that of LED lights, representing that energy conservation by upgrading lamps is feasible. In addition, plastic bags, disposable chopsticks and package boxes should also be banned in all markets, just like what Shanghai in China is implementing now. Meanwhile, the government is also obliged to aid manufactures in developing new products which consume less fuel or which can utilize renewable energy resources such as solar energy, wind energy and tidal energy.
In conclusion, if the government truly wants to advocate energy conservation, the best method is inventing and promoting energy-saving products instead of raising the price of electricity and gasoline.
