专四作文样题及参考答案+2016、、2018真题及参考答案.doc

专四作文样题 (2016年发布)
第一部分：原题
PART VI WRITING
[45 MIN]

Should we review traditional Chinese characters or continue using simplified characters? This has been an intensely discussed question for years. The following are the supporters' and opponents' opinions. Read carefully the opinions from both sides and write your response in about 200 words, in which you should first summarize briefly the opinions from both sides and give your view on the issue.
Marks will be awarded for content relevance, content sufficiency, organization and language quality. Failure to follow the above instructions may result in a loss of marks.

Yes
No
Traditional characters, which date back to more than 2000 years ago, have a more beautiful appearance and a more reasonable structure. As indicated by the 親 and 愛 examples, traditional characters make more sense, convey traditional values and can therefore represent traditional culture. For two millennia, Chinese historical records and classic works were written in traditional characters. To be able to read them and inherit traditional cultures, we need to bring traditional characters back. Politically, it is also necessary to restore traditional Chinese characters. Currently, traditional characters are still in use in Hong Kong, Taiwan and many Chinese communities around the world. Restoring them can contribute to cross-Strait exchanges and national reunifications and unite Chinese people around the world.

In today’s world, efficiency matters most. Traditional characters, which usually have more strokes than simplified  ones, are more difficult to learn. By contrast, simplified characters are much easier to learn and use. Over the past 50 years, lots of classic texts have been turned into simplified-character versions, which means simplified characters can also promote and preserve traditional culture. Constant simplification has been a trend in the evolution of Chinese characters. From the oracle bones script of 3000 years ago to traditional characters, the Chinese writing system has always been slimming down for better communication.

第二部分：参考答案（1）
写作指南
考生在下笔之前应先审题，明确写作要求：针对“我们究竟是该恢复中文繁体字还是继续使用简体汉字”这一热议话题，首先总结正反方的意见，然后给出个人观点。文章结构可安排如下：
第一段：简要概括赞同和反对恢复繁体字方和提倡使用简体字方的观点，
第二段： 表明自己的观点：复兴繁体字是不明智的。直击正方观点漏洞，分三点铺陈论证。繁体字在沟通交流上效率不及简体字；繁体字可读性和可接受性不强；保存传统文化和价值并不是只有恢复繁体字这一种方式。
第三段：重申观点——恢复中文繁体字不是明智之举。

The necessity to revive traditional Chinese characters has aroused an increasingly heated discussion for decades. Some in favor of it hold that traditional Chinese characters, with a more vivid and descriptive appearance, is a perfect embodiment of traditional culture and a bond for cross-Straits exchanges and national reunification (复兴). Some are against it for its complexity to write and inefficiency to communicate, which can be otherwise avoided by simplified characters. Besides, simplified characters can also serve the purpose of promoting traditional culture and this simplified writing system is an irreversible (不可逆的) trend.
From my perspective, it's not wise to deliberately / intentionally initiate a renaissance of traditional Chinese characters for following reasons:
First and foremost, words and language are tools created for better communication. In this sense, efficiency is of utmost importance if simplified Chinese characters can perform the same function of the traditional ones.
Secondly, readability (可读性) and acceptability are potential barriers / hindrance to the restoration (恢复) of traditional characters. Most of mainland Chinese learn simplified characters from their infancy / childhood. So it will be hard for them to accept a totally unfamiliar word system.
Last, traditional Chinese characters do help cultural inheritance (传承), but it doesn't mean reviving it is the sole (唯一的) way to preserve traditional culture and values.
Taking the above factors into consideration, I think it is unwise to revive traditional Chinese characters.

(252 words)

2016年专四真题作文
第一部分：原题
PART VI WRITING
[45 MIN]

Read carefully the following excerpt on term-time holiday arguments in the Uk, and then write your response in NO LESS THAN 200 words, in which you should:
l Summarize the main message of the excerpt, and then
l Comment on whether parents should take children out of school for holiday during term time in order to save money.
You should support yourself with information from the excerpt.

Marks will be awarded for content relevance, content sufficinecy, organization and language quality, failure to follow the above instruction may result in a loss of marks.
Term-time holidays will be banned
Parents are to be banned by Michael Gove, UK’s Education Secretary, from taking their children out of school to save money on holidays.
He is to abolish the right of head teachers to “authorise absense” from the classroom, which has been used to let families take term-time breaks, and will warn them they face fines for their children not being at school.
“Any time out of school has the potential to damage a child’s education,” a senior source at the Department for Education said this weekend. “That is why the government will end the distinction between authorized and unauthorized absence.”
“This is part of the government’s wider commitment to bring down truancy (['truːənsɪ]旷课) levels in our schools. There will also be stricter penalties (['penəltɪ] 处罚) for parents and schools.”
The tough measures on truancy are part of a wider attempt by Mr Gove to make education more academically rigorous and to tackle a culture in the educational establishment which he believes has accepted “excuses for failure”.
Russell Hobby, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said the measure would discourage parents from trying to put pressure on heads to section term time holidays. “ The high cost of holidays outside of term time is still an issue but ultimately a child’s is more important than a holiday, he said.

第二部分：参考答案
Which Is More Important, Education or a Cheaper Holiday?
New research has shown that almost four out of ten parents in the UK have taken their children out of school to go on holidays. Cost is the main reason given by parents for sacrificing their children’s education. Parents are to be banned, however, by UK’s Education Authority, from taking their children out of school to go during term time.
Should local authorities stagger school holidays to enable families with children to take advantage of travel bargains? Or is it wrong for parents to jeopardize their children’s education for the sake of a cheaper holiday? As far as I am concerned, education is more important. Firstly, children’s education must come first. A cheap holiday during the school season shouldn’t be the reason to take a child out of school. Some parents are not willing to sacrifice or schedule their lives in terms of their children’s needs. This kind of attitude will influence their children deeply. It’s no wonder so many kids are not interested in school and don’t take their study seriously. Secondly, school isn’t day care center. It’s an educational institution that needs every student to follow its rules. Taking a child on holiday when school is in session will disturb the order of the school. Besides, it is disruptive for the child, because he will have to catch up when he returns.
All in all, taking children out of school for a cheaper holiday is irresponsible behavior. Those parents would risk being fined financially and morally. It’s not only kids that need to grow up——a lot of parents need to as well.

(265 words)

2017年专四真题作文
第一部分：原题
PART VI WRITING
[45 MIN]

Read carefully the following excerpt and then write your response in NO LESS THAN 200 WORDS, in which you should:
1 ) summarize the main message of the excerpt, and then
2 ) Comment on whether our brains will get lazy in a world run by intelligent machines
You can support yourself with information from the excerpt.
Marks will be awarded for content relevance, content sufficiency, organization and language quality. Failure to follow the above instructions may result in a loss of marks.
Write your response on ANSWER SHEET THREE.
With intelligent machines to do the thinking, will our brains get lazy?
Changing technology stimulates the brain and increases intelligence. But that may only be true if the technology challenges us. In a world run by intelligent machines, our lives could get a lot simpler. Would that make us less intelligent?
Artificial intelligence is taking over many human jobs. For instance, planes are being flown much of the time by automatic pilots. And the complex problem of controlling air traffic around large modern airports is also achieved by artificial intelligence that operates well beyond the capacity of mere human air traffic controllers.
Artificial intelligence is embedded in many features of modern life for the simple reason that intelligent machines can already outperform humans, including some aptitudes where there was once thought to be a human advantage, such as playing chess, and writing poetry, or even novels.
As machines get smarter, they will do more of our thinking for us and make life easier. In the future, the electronic assistant will develop to the point that it serves similar functions as a real living butler, fulfilling requests such as: "Organize a dinner party for six on Thursday, Jeeves, and invite the usual guests."
At that point, our long struggle with challenging technologies is at an end. Like Be Wooster, we can take it easy knowing that the hard work of planning and organizing is being done by a better brain-the electronic assistant. Starved of mental effort, our brains will regress.

第二部分：参考答案
Nowadays, many aspects of people’s daily life have undergone considerable changes because of the recent development in artificial intelligence. Obviously, artificial intelligence has already completely renovated people’s lifestyle. On the one hand, the contribution of artificial intelligence to the society is prominent and people’s dependence on it is an irreversible trend. People enjoy the benefits and convenience brought by intelligent machines. On the other hand, people are still concerned about its negative impact, for example, whether our brains will regress with intelligent machines to do the thinking.
In my opinion, artificial intelligence will enable our brains to get more creative. Admittedly, a lot of work has been done by intelligent machines. It seems that the function of people has been weakened and people‘s brains have been replaced. As a matter of fact, thanks to intelligent machines, people can expand their creative energy and add new varieties. Simply speaking, when people are free from tedious, repetitive, sometimes even dangerous work, work efficiency will undoubtedly be improved. As a result, people can spare more time to do what they want and pursue what they dream of, which is the premise of creativity. Moreover, creativity stems primarily from knowledge and thinking. Once people have the opportunity to do more thinking and learning, their intelligence would be enhanced rather than weakened.
Although artificial intelligence is the exhibition of people’s high degree of creative power, it should be noted that it is like a double-edged sword. The sensible choice is to embrace its advantages and cope with the problems it has aroused. This is what an advanced and rational society should be like.

(268 words)

2018年专四真题作文
第一部分：原题
PART VI WRITING
[45 MIN]
Read carefully the following excerpt and then write your response in NO LESS THAN 200 words, in which
you should:
Ÿ summarize the main message of the report, and then
Ÿ comment on the two points made by Stephen Corry, Survival’s Director.
You can support yourself with information from the report.
Marks will be awarded for content relevance, content sufficiency, organization and language quality.
Failure to follow the above instructions may result in a loss of marks.
Write your response on ANSWER SHEET THREE.

Report Exposes the Dark Side of Conservation
A report launched by Survival International — the global movement for tribal peoples’ rights— reveals how conservation has led to the eviction of millions of tribal people from “protected areas”, since “protected areas” like national parks should generally be “no go” for mining, agriculture, dams, roads and pipelines. Survival’s report shows that nearly all protected areas are, or have been, the ancestral homelands of tribal peoples, who have been dependent on, and managed them for thousands of years. But in the name of “conservation”, tribal peoples are being “illegally driven out” from these lands and accused of “poaching”; meanwhile, tourists and fee-paying big-game hunters are welcomed in. Bushman Dauqoo Xukuri from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve in Botswana said, “I sit and look around the country. Wherever there are bushmen, there is game. Why? Because we know how to take care of animals.” Survival’s report concludes that the current model of conservation needs a radical shake-up. Conservation must stick to international law, protect tribal peoples’ rights to their lands, listen to them, and then be prepared to back them up as much as they can. Survival’s Director Stephen Corry said, “Millions are being spent by conservationists every year, and yet the environment’s in deepening crisis. It’s lime to wake up and realize that there is another way and it’s much, much better. Firstly, tribal peoples’ rights have to be acknowledged and respected. Secondly, they have to be treated as the best experts at defending their own lands. Conservationists must realize it’s they, themselves, who are junior partners.”

第二部分：参考答案
With industrialization and globalization, more and more farmlands, wet lands, jungles, forests and wild lands are swallowed in the name of modernization. As a result, large quantities of wild animals are killed or are driven out of their original habitants. The tribal people who used to live a peaceful life in their ancestral homelands have gradually lost their lands and traditional way of life. Facing this situation, Director Stephen Corry of Survival International puts forward two effective measures to reverse this deteriorating trend.
I cannot agree with him more. He has found out the key to the problem that has always puzzled the conservationists.
In the first place, the conservationists should abandon the idea that they are superior to the local people and have come to “save” the land or to “protect” the environment. They should acknowledge and respect the tribal people, including their lands, their culture, their religion, their rights and their way of life. In fact, the conservationists are not leaders or masters in conserving nature.
The next key point is cooperati