بخش نخست آزمون Speaking آیلتس: بسط دادن پاسخ

هر بخش از آزمون Speaking آیلتس سوالات خاص خود را دارد که نحوه ی پاسخگویی متفاوتی را از شما می طلبد. منطق ایجاب می نماید که برای هر یک از این بخش ها استراتژی و تکنیک خاصی را دنبال نمایید. در این مطلب به نحوه ی بسط پاسخ خود در بخش نخست آزمون Speaking آیلتس می پردازیم.

در این بخش شما باید به تقریبا ۱۲ سوال در مدت ۴ دقیقه پاسخ دهید. بنابراین پاسخ های شما نباید بیش از حد طولانی باشند. در عین حال نباید به یک پاسخ چند کلمه ای مختصر اکتفا کنید!

راه های بسیاری برای بسط پاسخ کوتاه و طولانی کردن آن وجود دارد، اما بهترین راه آن است که ابتدا مستقیما به سوال پرسیده شده پاسخ بدهید و سپس در دو یا سه جمله ی دیگر درباره ی آن توضیح دهید. می توانید از ساختار زیر در جواب های خود استفاده نمایید:

Here is what I think – this is why I think it – and this is an example.

برای ایجاد ارتباط میان جملات مربوط به هر یک از بخش های ساختار بالا می توانید از کلمات زیر، که به همراه کاربرد هر یک از آن ها برای شما آورده شده است، بهره ببرید:

because – explain with a reason

for example – add an example

but – add a different idea

so – talk about the consequences

and – add another similar idea

مثال:

Question: How often do you use a computer?

Answer: Actually not that much. [short answer first]. That’s because I mostly use my smart phone to send mails and check things online. It’s much easier to carry a phone around than a computer and so I only ever really use my computer now for writing documents and word processing.

روش دیگر بسط پاسخ مقایسه کردن است. این روش مخصوصا در مواردی مانند پرسش از عادات مردم محل زندگی شما کاربرد دارد (که اتفاقا از سوالات رایج در آزمون است). در چنین مواردی شما نه یک پاسخ، بلکه دو پاسخ کوتاه می دهید! که معمولا با کلمه ی But به یکدیگر متصل می شوند. تعدادی از کلماتی که در این بخش به کار شما می آیند عبارتند از:

sometimes

quite often

from time to time

mostly

some people

most people

مثال:

Question: What type of music is popular in your country?

Answer: I suppose different kinds of music are popular with different people [short answer first]. Some people – mostly the younger generation – prefer to listen to pop and dance music but older people tend to prefer traditional folk music or classical music.

برای دیدن مطالب بیشتر کافیست کلیک کنید

نمونه رایتینگ آیلتس قسمت شانزدهم

Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so protecting them is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people argue that it is pointless to spend money on the protection of wild animals because we humans have no need for them. I completely disagree with this point of view.

In my opinion, it is absurd to argue that wild animals have no place in the 21st century. I do not believe that planet Earth exists only for the benefit of humans, and there is nothing special about this particular century that means that we suddenly have the right to allow or encourage the extinction of any species. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason why we should let animals die out. We do not need to exploit or destroy every last square meter of land in order to feed or accommodate the world’s population. There is plenty of room for us to exist side by side with wild animals, and this should be our aim.

I also disagree with the idea that protecting animals is a waste of resources. It is usually the protection of natural habitats that ensures the survival of wild animals, and most scientists agree that these habitats are also crucial for human survival. For example, rainforests produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide and stabilize the Earth’s climate. If we destroyed these areas, the costs of managing the resulting changes to our planet would far outweigh the costs of conservation. By protecting wild animals and their habitats, we maintain the natural balance of all life on Earth.

In conclusion, we have no right to decide whether or not wild animals should exist, and I believe that we should do everything we can to protect them. (269 words)

Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so protecting them is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people argue that it is pointless to spend money on the protection of wild animals because we humans have no need for them. I completely disagree with this point of view.

In my opinion, it is absurd to argue that wild animals have no place in the 21st century. I do not believe that planet Earth exists only for the benefit of humans, and there is nothing special about this particular century that means that we suddenly have the right to allow or encourage the extinction of any species. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason why we should let animals die out. We do not need to exploit or destroy every last square meter of land in order to feed or accommodate the world’s population. There is plenty of room for us to exist side by side with wild animals, and this should be our aim.

I also disagree with the idea that protecting animals is a waste of resources. It is usually the protection of natural habitats that ensures the survival of wild animals, and most scientists agree that these habitats are also crucial for human survival. For example, rainforests produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide and stabilize the Earth’s climate. If we destroyed these areas, the costs of managing the resulting changes to our planet would far outweigh the costs of conservation. By protecting wild animals and their habitats, we maintain the natural balance of all life on Earth.

In conclusion, we have no right to decide whether or not wild animals should exist, and I believe that we should do everything we can to protect them. (269 words)

برای دیدن مطالب بیشتر کافیست کلیک کنید