综合写作

　　总论点：Andes的围墙是不是堡垒。

　　阅读：不是

　　1. 不是每个方向都有不符合一般的堡垒结构。

　　2.有很多入口，一般堡垒只有一个入口。

　　3.堡垒没法存水，如果被围困几天便无法存活。

　　听力：反驳，还是有可能是堡垒的

　　1.不需要每个方向都有，因为有的地方有自然堡垒，比如悬崖峭壁。

　　2.入口是为了看外面发生的事。

　　3.不需要有储水的地方，那时候打仗不会用围困这种方法，而且敌人也没有足够的水来支撑几天围困。

　　话题分类：考古学

　　解题思路：总论点阐述+三个分段针对三个分论点一一分析。

　　参考范文：

　　The lecture apparently refutes the pointsillustrated in the reading passage. According to the reading, the fence onAndes cannot be the fortress. On the contrary, the professor in the lectureholds an opposite stand that there is such a possibility of the fence being thefortress.

　　First of all, the professor casts doubt on thereading by claiming that the fortress does not have to be in every directionfor the reason that some places have natural fortresses such as cliff, whichdiffers from the statement in the passage that the fence does not fit thestructure since not every direction has the fortress。

　　Moreover, another point the speaker adopts tocontradict the passage is that more than one entrances can still be perform thefunction of defending mainly due to the fact that sometimes it is used toobserve the coming enemies. Also, it is not difficult to close those entrancessince these are not wide. However, the author states that usually fortress onlyhas one entrance but this place has many ones。

　　Finally, the writer of the passage harbors theidea that this place cannot store water which leads to the problem of survivalif the soldiers are surrounded by enemies for several days, whereas theprofessor views this in a different angle. As he emphasizes, it is unlikelythat the enemies would take the long-term war strategy because even the enemiesthemselves could not last long in such a dry climate.

　　独立写作

　　做小组任务，一个是选择你想选的人，一个是选跟你想法完全不一样的人，哪种方式效果更好?

　　话题分类：教育类

　　解题思路：五段式

　　参考范文：

　　Having a glimpse of thecurrent groups or teams in various industries, we may marvel at the fact that differentleaders have their own strategy to build their own teams. Some leaders preferto choose group members they like or appreciate, while others tend to only keepthose with different ideas or opinions. If you ask me which way is more effective,I would definitely share my support with the latter one.

　　First and foremost, fewwould disagree with the fact that there are no perfect or omnipotent leaders,which means even a most successful leader could not deal with everything in atask or think up every solution when problems come up. It is entirely possiblethat a leader may run out of innovative ideas at some stage. At this moment, hewill need a group member who can think differently to help him by devoting somenew ideas or solutions. Taking Ma Huateng, the founder of Tencent Co. as anexample, we may find that when QQ faced a big crisis with the uprising ofFacebook and other forms several years ago, Ma Huateng, as the leader, had no solutionto save the previous prosperity of QQ until one of his employee proposed a newform of chatting online, which is Wechat. After adopting the suggestion of thisgroup member, Ma Huateng managed to make Wechat the most popular communicativetool in China. That is to say, this successful leader would never achieve sucha bigger success without the different idea of his group member.

　　Moreover, there is nodenying the fact that having group members with different opinions is aneffective way of keeping the leader from becoming a tyranny. Imagine that aleader only chooses people he like to be his group member, then all of themembers would just listen to his words with no courage to make any valuableadvices. Then the whole group would become a team of obedient “servants”. Wouldthis kind of group last very long? The answer is definitely negative. Let usnot forget how Hitler dug up his own grave by sticking to his Fascism ideologywithout any group member who can speak up differently. He was the typical leaderwho only chose the group members he liked and never listened to the members’opinions. That is the reason why his empire went into ashes so fast.

　　Admittedly, some wouldargue that if the group is full of members who hold conflictive ideas comparedwith the leader’s, how could such a group unite together to develop itself?More specifically, would it be possible that the leader would be busy atsolving conflicts all the time? From this point, it could be dangerous if aleader chooses some members with totally different ideas. However, it must beacknowledged that a qualified leader should be capable of recognizing whetherthe different ideas of the group members should be adopted or not. In otherwords, a successful leader can take valuable suggestions from his group membersfrom time to time while eliminating unnecessary conflicts or useless ideas atthe same time. Without this ability, the leader can not be qualified as oneindeed.

　　In conclusion, it is much more reasonable tokeep group members with different ideas for a leader even though sometimes itmight be kind of difficult to deal with these opinions. At least, no one wouldwant a leader who is a total tyranny who only choose and trust the people helikes.