剑桥雅思真题7-写作(Test 4 附高分范文)

剑桥雅思真题7—写作（Test 4 附高分范文）Writing Task 1You should spend about 20 minutes on this task.Write at least 150 words.参考范文1：The given pie charts shows data on the electricity production from fuel sources in Australia and in France in 1980 and 2000. As is observed from the pie charts, coal was the main source for electricity production in Australia while France used the Nuclear Power more in recent years to meet their electricity demand.According the given data, Australia produced 100 units of electricity in 1980 and 170 units in 2000 while the production in France was 90 units and doubled in the year 2000.In Australia coal was the main source of electricity production and half of the total electricity produced came from coal in 1980. Natural gas and hydro power contributed of producing 20 units of electricity while remaining 10 units was produced from oil. The dependency on coal increased in 2000 for electricity production while oil and natural gases were very minimally used for electricity production. Nuclear power was not used in Australia as source for producing electricity.On the contrary, In France natural gas and coal together produced half of the electricity in 1980. The use of nuclear power increased significantly in France in 2000 amounting 126 units in this year compared to the 15 units 20 years back.The charts compare the sources of electricity in Australia and France in the years 1980 and 2000. During these years electricity production almost doubled, rising from 100 units to 170 in Australia, and from 90 to 180 units in France.In 1980 Australia used coal as the main electricity source (50 units) and the remainder was produced from natural gas, hydro power (each producing 20 units) and oil (which produced only 10 units). By 2000, coal had become the fuel for more than 75% of electricity produced and only hydro power continued to be another significant source supplying approximately 20%.In contrast, France used coal as a source for only 25 units of electricity in 1980, which was matched by natural gas. The remaining 40 units were produced largely from oil and nuclear power, with hydro power contributing only 5 units. But by 2000 nuclear power, which was not used at all in Australia, had developed into the main source, producing almost 75% of electricity, at 126 units, while coal and oil together produced only 50 units. Other sources were no longer significant.Overall, it is clear that by 2000 these two countries relied on different principal fuel sources: Australia relied on coal and France on nuclear power.参考范文3：In Australia, the units of electricity are produced by four different sources. In 1980, coal was the most popular source which produced 50 units of electricity. It is interesting to note that the units of electricity generated by hydro power equaled that by natural gas (20 units). In addition, only 10 units of electricity sourced from oil. Two decades later, the total production had risen to 170 units. Specifically, the data for coal increased sharply to 130 units, and that for hydro power witnessed a similar trend. In contrast, both natural gas and oil rapidly dropped to only 2 units respectively.In terms of France, in the year of 1980, its electricity was generated by five sources. Natural gas and coal were the most important ones which produced 50 units altogether, representing more than 50% of the total 90 units. It was followed by oil and nuclear power which generated 20 units and 15 units respectively. Only 5 units was made by hydro power. After 20 years, total production soared to 180 units, among which nuclear power amazingly rocketed to 126 units, while coal remained constant. Natural gas and hydro power alike dropped to only 2 units.In conclusion, over the two decades, the approaches of electricity generation had undergone great changes both in France and in Australia. It is noticeable that coal and hydro power were relatively important in the two countries.Writing Task 2You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.Write about the following topic:Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.Write at least 250 words.Education experts have spent years poring over surveys and compiling data, trying to come up with conclusive evidence as to the main function of a university. It seems in recent years the opinion swings from one extreme to the other.One of the more compelling arguments for universities providing graduates with expertise for their future careers finds its origins in economics. Parents have been investing in their children’s college studies in hope that they will earn a decent job with stable salary. Consequently, career preparation is becoming increasingly vital to the young people, especially in today's tight labor market with fewer jobs than before. Some people thus have called for universities to be more vocation-oriented because that way not only the graduates’ employment rates would be enhanced but the students be motivated for being given an opportunity to succeed in their future professions. From a helicopter view, in countries, particularly developing ones, the economic advances need numerous professional talents in the fields like finance, management, legislation, medicine, thereby putting universities in a pivotal position of nurturing these professionals.However, reaching the conclusion that other functions, such as giving access to knowledge for its own sake, are no longer important is biased. For hundreds of years, especially in the west, the undergraduate education is, indeed, a liberal education, which means the undergraduates learn a wide range of curriculums such as psychology, economics, politics that has no direct relations to jobs. The upsides of this is that it firstly enables students to become broad-minded and help them lay a solid theoretical foundation, then they will be able to choose the most appropriate field based on their own interests for further studies.Personally, without suggesting that imparting career-oriented knowledge and skills is the sole function of modern universities, I think it is by no means a less important one. In any way, it is now increasingly acting as a gauge for judging a university and therefore becoming one of the primary functions of a university.参考范文2：Some people indicate that the graduates should get the sufficient knowledge and skill for the work during the high-level education. Others argue that it is important for universities to give the fundamental knowledge to students. That is a frequent topic of discussion.Someone explains that there are a great number of students cannot go to work directly after leaving universities. Because of there is a gap between school and workplace. Most of the students go to school and want to get some working skill. A few students want to do a research work. The education is a kind of service for students, which should give a satisfaction to customers.In my opinion, the university should only give the knowledge to students, which is the aim of teaching. There is plenty of evidence to support the view that teacher in high-level education system need not reaches the demand from the employer. Different people have different meaning for the education. At the same time, the professor cannot cover all the direction for working experience. To deal with the problems, the company should apply the education for the new employee. During this, the graduate could play an important role as soon as possible. On the other hand, with the rapid development of society, more and more people go to the vocational schools to improve their working knowledge. The vocational education could regulate the gap between the universities and the company.Overall, it is clear that the real aim of the high-level education is the science introduction for students, regardless of the need of work. Government and employer should develop the vocationaleducation for labor market new comers.。