TOEFL integrate writing practice--2023-11-15

Official TPO 61

Task

Reading passage

The golden frog is a small, bright-yellow amphibian that lives in and around mountain streams in Panama. The species is severely endangered because of a fungus that infects the frog through its skin and inhibits the frog’s critical life functions, such as breathing Conservationists have proposed a few solutions to the golden frog’s fungus problem. Bacterial Protection First, scientists have identified a natural enemy of the fungus: a type of bacterium. This bacterium produces a chemical that kills fungal cells. Scientists think that they may be able to introduce colonies of this bacterium to the skin of golden frogs. The bacterial colonies would then protect the frogs against the fungus infection. Breeding Frogs in Captivity Second, researchers are considering the possibility of breeding golden frogs in captivity and then releasing them in the wild to replenish wild populations. The golden frog can develop disease-free in captivity, where it is isolated from the fungus. When golden frogs bred in captivity are released in habitats where wild golden frogs have died out, the frog bred in captivity will give rise to a healthy, fungus-free population. A Natural Defense Third, it is possible that golden frogs will overcome the threat posed by the fungus without human intervention. Some golden frogs have what seems to be a natural defense against the fungus. When infected, they increase their body temperature, which slows down the growth of the fungus. If this ability to resist the fungal infection spreads among the golden frog population as a whole, the frog population is likely to overcome the crisis and start increasing again.

Listening material

Professor: Unfortunately, none of the solutions you read about will be very effective in helping to save golden frog populations. First, using the protective bacterium will probably not work. Scientists introduced this bacterium to the skin of golden frogs. The bacterium did have a positive effect, but it did not last very long. The protection against the fungus was only temporary. You see, the bacterium produces a chemical that attacks the fungus. Unfortunately, the bacterium only produces this chemical early in its colonization of the frog skin. After this brief period, the bacteria stop producing the chemical and therefore stop protecting the golden frogs from the fungi infection. Second, if we release healthy golden frogs bred in captivity to an area where the wild golden frogs have died out, this new frog population is not going to stay healthy. That’s because some other animals living in that environment carry the same disease-causing fungus. So if we release golden frogs raised in captivity into that environment, they will soon get infected by the fungus, as they come into contact with the wild animals there that are already infected. So this plan probably won’t work either. Third, what about the frogs that defend themselves against the fungus by heating up their bodies? Well, this type of natural defense seems to have a big drawback. Frogs that heat up their bodies have to use up a lot of energy. The expenditure of so much extra energy weakens the frogs, and frogs that are weak can easily get ill or even die from other causes. So frogs that use this defense might be protected from the fungus but they are not strong and healthy. It’s unlikely that using this defense will help the golden frog population to recover.

Question

Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific solutions proposed in the reading passage.

My answer

The lecture is a discussion concerning to the doubt casting on solutions to protect the golden frog from a infectious fungus, which challenges the main idea in the reading passage. First of all, the author presents a viewpoint that we can use a kind of bacterum which can kill fungus using its chemical in order to save the golden frog. The listening passage, by contrast, puts forward a divergent opionion that this way doesn’t work. This is because the process of producing the chemial made by the bacteria is temporary, which means it can not last long. After the early stage, it would stop making more chemicals. Futhermore, another point of view presented by the lecturer is that we can not keep the population of golden frog by breeding and releasing them in large quatity, whihc contradicts to the statement given by the reading passage. Then the lecturer supports her opionion by saying that the frogs released to the environment can also be infected by the bacteria and get ill, which means they will dead as the same as the local frog. Finally, although the reading passage asserts that the golden frog can pass through this thread themselves without the help of human, contrary to what the reading states, the lecturer maintains the strong disagreement. In order to prove her point of view, the lecturer says that there is a obvious drawback if the golden frogs protecting themselves by increasing the body temperature. The large amount of energe consumed in the process of heating would lead the weakness the frogs, and then make them get ill even dead.

Refined answer by ChatGPT

The lecture challenges the effectiveness of proposed solutions in the reading passage aimed at protecting golden frogs from an infectious fungus. The main points of contention are as follows:

Firstly, the reading suggests using a bacterium that produces a chemical to kill the fungus, offering protection to the golden frogs. However, the lecture counters this by highlighting that while the initial application of the bacterium has a positive impact, it is temporary. The production of the chemical diminishes after an early stage, rendering the protection short-lived.

Additionally, the reading proposes breeding golden frogs in captivity and releasing them into the wild to replenish populations. In contrast, the lecture disputes this strategy, explaining that the captive-bred frogs are susceptible to infection by the fungus present in the environment, transmitted by other infected animals. Therefore, this approach does not ensure the long-term health of the released frogs.

Lastly, the reading posits that golden frogs may have a natural defense mechanism by elevating their body temperature to resist the fungus. The lecture challenges this idea, revealing a significant drawback. While this defense mechanism may protect against the fungus, it comes at the cost of consuming substantial energy, resulting in weakened frogs vulnerable to other illnesses and potential fatalities.

What I learned today

• Spelling mistake

energe => energy

• It is much better for visual appeal if a blank line is added after each paragraph.

• Some new expression method

  • disagreement

  challenges the effectiveness

  counter

  dispute

  • propose

    aimed at

  • view
    suggest

    propose

    posit

  • transition

    in contrast

• Some new words

  • dimish
  • render
  • susceptible == vulnerable
  • fatality