A) 9/3 essay question
Children who grow up in families without large amounts of money are better prepared to deal with problems in their adult life than children who are brought up by wealthy parents. Do you agree or disagree?
在考完这道题之后，我查看了一些考生在网上发表的评论，发现很多同学觉得这样的题目太偏，出乎意料。的确，和往常的A类写作教育类话题不同，这道题虽然表面上还是在谈education,但却已经是在谈家庭经济状况对孩子能力的影响，更象是general training考试当中的话题。另一方面，很多同学在把题目理解成了中文的“穷人的孩子早当家”。事实上这道题目当中families without large amounts of money决不是“穷”的意思，准确的意思是没有很多钱的家庭。审题的失误导致了很多考生在文章中观点的偏激，导致扣分。还有一个误区在于因为这道题目和中国文化比较贴近，很多同学会举过多的简单生活事例但是却忽视了普遍性推理，导致论证缺乏深度。以下是对这道题解法的具体说明：
从论点上看，考虑到多数考生更熟悉中国的国情，肯定是totally agree更好写,布什的内阁里面现在也有拉洋板儿车出身的（不过在美国富豪的孩子当中牛人还是出了不少，四十三位总统里面也有大量富家子弟，从整体上看在西方有钱的家长更舍得让自己的孩子经历风雨）。既然观点写一边倒，那么结构当然就是五段式——开头段转述题目+主旨句，主体段1讲一般家庭的孩子比富家孩子有更强的心理承受能力，主体段2讲一般家庭的孩子有更强的独立性，主体段3讲普通家庭的家长对小孩的要求往往更严格，结尾段总结上文三层意思。thesis statement和topic sentences（范文里用横线标明）要是少了，扣分没商量。
income gaps 指收入差距 income inequality 指收入不均 intergenerational两代人之间的 turn the tables 是个idiom,有点像中文说的"打翻身仗" offspring 孩子counterpart 相对应的人（或事物）meritocratic society 说白了就是“凭本事吃饭的社会“ self-restraint 自制能力infancy 婴儿期frugality勤俭 financial strains 说白了就是缺钱，名词 well-off / affluent（adj） / well-to-do/ well-heeled / wealthy 都是有钱的意思，实在弹尽粮绝了还可以再用一个moneyed(adj), autonomy 自己管理自己，名词 initiative 主动性 well-acquainted 对某事很熟悉，mitigate缓解，要说解决问题，雅思里面词汇也特多tackle / address / solve / resolve / grapple with / combat 再加题目里的deal with.
It is widely accepted that we have been living in a “the rich get richer whereas the poor get poorer” age in terms of income gaps within a generation. However, to this day, there has been no consensus yet over the extent to which income inequality is intergenerational. Some contend that the offspring of low-income and middle-income parents can largely grow up to manifest better problem-solving abilities during adulthood than their high-income family counterparts, thereby turning the tables socially and financially. Personally, I believe this is generally the case in any meritocratic society.
First and foremost, children raised in households not in possession of a good fortune are conditioned early on in their lives to exercise self-control and self-restraint. These individuals learn from their infancy onward that not everything they crave will become theirs instantaneously. Every so often their wishes go beyond their parents’ means and they have to come to terms with the resulting sense of frustration or rejection. Throughout the childhood and early adulthood years they are tempered by the repeated experiences of parents’ denial of their requests and frugality is inculcated into their minds as a virtue. Consequently these children, for the most part, are apt to interpret scrimping and saving, emotional uneasiness, not infrequent financial strains and menial first jobs as an integral part of life rather than a devastating ordeal. Hence they end up being better able to manage stress in their adult years and less likely to panic or get daunted when problems occur.
Further, children brought up by parents of low or middle economic status often grow up to be physically, mentally and professionally more independent than children brought up by affluent parents. It goes without saying that children whose parents are not particularly well-off are more likely than children of affluent households to know how to get the most out of a modest allowance, if they ever get such a thing at all. To the former group of children, most desirable things in life have to be “earned”—that is, more often than not they must put forth great effort before their desire is fulfilled. On the other hand, busy, low or medium salaried parents translate into more autonomy and initiative on the children’s part. This originally disadvantaged group becomes spontaneous and handy through crafting toys on their own, resourceful by cooking their own meals, tactful with coaxing their parents into buying them gifts, intelligent thanks to the absence of private tutors, savvy in doing summer jobs, and above all, unrelenting in pursuing their dreams.
Lastly, non-wealthy parents typically have higher and more definite aspirations for their children than well-to-do parents. Well-acquainted with all the disadvantages a meager or fair-to-middling bank account generates, many non-wealthy parents pin their hopes on their children to get their families upwardly mobile. These adults mostly have high behavioral, educational and (subsequently) occupational expectations for their children. As a result, they cannot afford to be permissive parents. Spoiling their offspring rotten is the last thing they care to do and they are always ready to discipline their children when they misbehave. They keep tabs on their children’s grades at school and do not spare the rod when their offspring do not measure up academically. The odds of children raised in such rigorous environments having good problem-solving skills are apparently better than children raised otherwise.
To conclude, the chief determinant of individuals’ problem-solving skills is not the amount of money their parents can amass when they are little. Rather, hands-on experience in comprehending, analyzing, resolving , mitigating or circumventing problems is more essential to the cultivation of problem-solving abilities. Hence, I am convinced that families without great wealth are more advantageous to the development of individual capacity to tackle problems.
B） 9/10 essay question
Some people think stricter punishment for driving offenders is the only way to improve safety on the roads. Do you agree or disagree?
这道题同样让很多A类考生觉得困惑，是因为（1）话题很不熟悉（惩罚肇事司机）；（2）这道题属于development + crime的模式而不是单独某一类话题；（3）考生对于话题当中的逻辑错误（the only way）不够熟悉，缺乏敏感度。以下是对这道题解法的具体说明：
从逻辑学角度看，A类考题里面只要出现 the adj+est（形容词最高级） 就采取一边倒的反对写法，the only就一般都使用折衷式写法会比较好写。这道题就是典型的折衷式写法，写四段式，大负小正，小的方面放在前面写。具体说：开头段+主体段1（承认更严厉的惩罚是有效办法之一）+（主体段2）提出还有其他的办法也必须要一起执行才可以+结尾段总结。
car ownership汽车占有量 incidence 发生率 car wrecks 撞车 perpetrators 肇事者 stiff punishment/severe punishment/ harsh penalty 严厉的惩罚 halt/curb 遏制 rampant 猖獗的 apprehensive 形容词，对……有所顾忌的 surveillance camera 监控摄像头 promulgate 颁布（法令） hazard （危险）forestall=prevent 预防 pedestrian 行人jaywalk 违章横穿马路 circumvent 规避 the law enforcement执法(部门) draconian（法律）严厉的 lax (法律)松懈的
The soaring car ownership in China has thrown the issue of traffic accidents into sharp relief. According to recent research conducted by China’s Ministry of Transportation, the annual incidence of car wrecks is nearly three times as high as the corresponding figure a decade ago. Many people have been alarmed by this trend and assert that imposing stiffer punishment on the perpetrators is the only effective way to curb this disturbing phenomenon. Speaking for myself, I tend to believe their view has both merit and demerit.
Granted, more severe penalty does carry certain advantages in halting the rampant driving offenses on the roads. First and foremost ,it would be the most cost-effective way to deter those would-be driving offenders. Heavy fines, long community service or even jail terms would render most of the aggressive drivers apprehensive about violating the traffic law, even without extra government funding to upgrade traffic surveillance cameras or augment traffic police force. Further, the effect of this hardline approach would be immediate. Once the related law is promulgated, we would be sure to witness a substantial decline in driving offenses overnight.
However, there are also traffic hazards that we cannot forestall by merely stiffening the punishment of aggressive or destructive driving conduct. To begin with, pedestrians who habitually jaywalk will not be discouraged by this move. Pedestrians account for a considerable proportion of traffic-accident culprits. Thus, pedestrian offenses such as jaywalking must be effectively checked as well. Secondly, if people who are regularly behind the wheel are not awakened to the horrific perils traffic offenses may breed , some of them will exploit every possibility to circumvent the law enforcement capability. If people abide by the traffic law solely out of fear for punishment, when a surveillance camera is out of order or the traffic police fail to keep tabs on a specific section of a freeway, all hell would break loose. Lastly, strict punishment of disorderly driving conduct does not guarantee infallible detection of driving offenses. Without sophisticated traffic-offense detecting apparatuses and an alert traffic police force, traffic laws, no matter how draconian, would be lax enough for hardened reckless drivers to disregard.
In the final analysis, I concede that harsh penalty for driving offenders constitutes an effective way to deter irresponsible driving behavior. However, the growing trend of flagrant driving offenses cannot be halted by stiffer punishment of driving offenders alone. Hence we must take a more integrated approach to this modern-day scourge, possibly including equally heavy punishment for pedestrian offenses, the heightening of people’s awareness about the horrific consequences of reckless driving and the advancement of traffic offense detectors and more capable traffic law enforcement forces.
C) 9/17 essay question:
Some people think animal experiments should be stopped because they are too cruel. Others think they are necessary for the development of sciences. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
和这道题很类似的一道题被预测押中了，但是我们不能因此而忽视这道题在写法上与预测题的差别。预测题是这样的: Some people think animal experiments should be conducted for the benefit of human beings. Do you agree or disagree? 看起来和9/17的考题很相似，但是这两道题在结构上却是完全不同的。9/17号的考题是两种观点之间辩论，所以全篇文章写四段。而预测题则一般同学会写成五段式，而且主旨句，主题句和结尾段的写法都不尽相同。如果考生对于task2 的结构，主旨句和主题句的写法不够熟练，同样无法在考试有限的时间内做出调整，写出清晰有说服力的文章来。以下是对这道题解法的具体说明：
这篇文章想素材当然用思考素材四类方法当中的综合法，相加得出观点：动物实验应该继续，但是要尽可能减小动物的痛苦。相应的写四段，大正小负，当然还是小的放在前面写。1 开头段（不少于四句）；2 有一些动物实验确实cruel（五句）;3 但是一些领域的研究又不能缺少动物实验（七句）；4 综合，得出结论（不少于三句）。
friends or foes 或敌或友 subject（vt） animals to experimentation拿动物去做实验unjustifiable站不住脚的,不合适的 necessitate 使……成为必需callous残酷的 confinement 囚禁 veterinary 动物医疗 vaccination 接种 vivisection 活体解剖 rodent 指老鼠那一类动物 primate 灵长类 pragmatic 灵活的追求实效的（pragmatism也是美国人最大的特征）pharmaceutical companies制药公司anthropological and genetic 人类学的和基因学的analgesic, anesthetic and tranquilizing drugs医学当中镇痛最常用的三种方法
Animals were friends or foes of humanity at different times of the human history. In modern times, experiments upon animals have long been a breeding ground for spirited debate. Some animal activists argue that we should ban animal experiments altogether because subjecting animals to experimentation is unjustifiable on moral grounds. Yet some other people contend that the advancement of science necessitates animal testing. Personally, I believe both their views have merit and demerit.
Granted, empirical evidence suggests that many animal experiments are performed callously without any heed to the discomfort or pain that laboratory mammals endure. First and foremost, improper confinement of test animals such as locking them up in cramped cages or poor veterinary is inhumane .It can gravely disrupt natural biological functions of the test animal. Further, the effects of vaccination and vivisection conducted on live rodents, primates and other lab mammals can be gruesome and chilling. They may, in some cases, even constitute sheer torture of live animals.
However, from a more pragmatic perspective, evidence is mounting that animal experimentation is still largely a necessary evil and there is no practical alternative for it at this point. In the first place, it is manifest that drug experimentation on live mammals is far more effectual than experimentation on bacteria or on other lower species in testing drug safety. Drugs that have severe potential side effects on homo sapiens must be tested by pharmaceutical companies on live mammals first to ascertain their toxicity. In the second place, in space research, live animals are still the only viable alternative to humans in testing living creature reaction to outer-space experience on a flight not considered to be sufficiently safe for human astronauts. Lastly, lab research about the behavioral tendencies of chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and other members of the primate group is also necessary. It produces valuable outcomes consistently advancing anthropological and genetic studies.
To conclude, I concede that experiments upon animals may induce suffering to the test animals. However, I am convinced that there are no feasible alternatives to this methodology at the current stage of scientific development. On balance , I think that we should allow animals testing to be continued but at the same time use techniques such as analgesic, anesthetic and tranquilizing drugs to minimize the pain inflicted upon the test animal and augment the general welfare of these animals.