Reading
"With fossil fuel reserves beginning to dwindle, there is a great deal of academic and commercial interest in the exploitation of alternative energy. Due to their many advantages, wave-energy facilities- commonly referred to as wave farms- will be increasingly common in the future. One basis for this position is that wave farms are incredibly reliable generators of power. The reason is the make use of waves that are constant and predictable. Coastal areas generally experience the same seasonal variations in wave frequency and intensity each year, and these annual patterns are well documented by oceanographers. This means that it is possible to accurately predict the generation capaciv of a wave-power facility. Furthermore, wave-energy facilities have been proven to be environmentally friendly. As the process of harnessing the energy of waves does not involve the burning of fossil fuels like oil, coal, or natural gas, greenhouse gasses and other pollutants are not emitted into the atmosphere. There is also no risk of contaminating the ocean because the floating convertors use the movement of the waves to turn their turbines, meaning that they do not contain any harmful fuels that can leak into the water. Lastly, wave farms do not have a negative impact on the natural beauty of the surrounding landscape. While other types of power, like coal and nuclear energy, are generated by large, conspicuous power plants, wave-power convertors are fairly small and usually float on or just below the surface of the water. Therefore, even if many are installed in a single location, they will not be noticeable to anyone in the area."
Listening
The article I asked you to read takes a fairly optimistic view of the future of wave energy. Um, what you need to realize, though, is that not everyone agrees. Some experts even argue that the so-called advantages of wave farms are just an illusion. To start with, the argument that wave farms are constant and, uh, dependable energy providers fails to take one important factor into consideration . .. disruptions in power generation due to technical problems. Wave farms involve the use of new technologies in a harsh marine environment, so . . . well, breakdowns are an ongoing issue. Because the, uh, convertors malfunction so often, the amount of power generated at a wave-energy facility tends to fluctuate wildly. And what about the assertion that wave-energy facilities don't cause any environmental problems? Um, this seems easy to dismiss as well. The floating convertors actually contain harmful chemicals that can damage ocean ecosystems. For example, chemical lubricants are used in many of these devices to ensure that turbines and, uh, other moving parts are able to move freely. These substances are highly toxic and have an adverse effect on marine organisms if they leak into the ocean. Let's now turn to the visual impact of wave-energy convertors. Despite claims to the contrary, they do negatively affect the surrounding scenery. The floating convertors are highly visible because they have to be painted with bright colors. Um, this is done to make them detectable by shipping vessels. Given that they are usually set up close to shore, they can be easily spotted by tourists from beaches.
My answer:
Estimate the answer and provide scores according to the guideline.
and fix some words and sentences with the same level at which I wrote, maintaining the original meaning at best to sound clear.
The reading passage contends that wave farms are going to be popular as an alternative energy in the future with the three reasons. On the other hand, the lecturer brings up several points that contradict this argument.
First, the lecturer asserts that there will be frequent breakdown as a up-to-date converter has not been proved yet and sometimes it operates unpredictably. This casts doubt on reading passage's claim that these wave-energy facilities are reliable and can be used in control.
Second, the lecturer contends that the usage of these facilities are harmful on environment. This is because one of the parts in converter has chemical property which is toxic to marine ocean. This counters the reading passage's claim that wave-energy facilities are environmentally friendly.
Lastly, the lecturer points out that these facilities have an negative impact on nature visually because converters float on the ocean and they are easily detectable by tourists. This refutes the reading passage's assertion that wave farms are irrelevant to aesthetic aspect of natural landscape.
Estimation by GPT:
Estimation: The response would likely score around a 3 out of 5 according to TOEFL integrated writing task guidelines.
Here's why:
The response successfully combines points from both the reading passage and the lecture, indicating an understanding of the task.
The structure of the response is good, providing an introduction, body paragraphs for each point, and a conclusion.
The response clearly identifies the contrasting points between the reading passage and the lecture.
There are a few awkward phrases and minor grammatical errors that hinder the clarity of the text.
Revised response:
The reading passage presents the idea that wave farms will become a popular alternative energy source in the future, supported by three main arguments. However, the lecturer offers several counterpoints that challenge this claim.
Firstly, the lecturer suggests that wave farms might face frequent breakdowns since the cutting-edge technology they employ is not yet proven and might operate unpredictably. This assertion undermines the claim in the reading passage that wave-energy facilities are reliable and can produce power consistently.
Secondly, the lecturer contends that the operation of these facilities could potentially harm the environment. This is due to the chemical properties of a component in the converter which is toxic to marine life. This argument challenges the reading passage's claim that wave-energy facilities are environmentally friendly.
Lastly, the lecturer points out that these facilities could negatively impact the natural landscape visually. Since the brightly colored converters float on the ocean surface, they are easily noticeable to tourists. This refutes the reading passage's assertion that wave farms do not compromise the aesthetic appeal of the natural landscape.
GPT's answer:
The reading passage posits that wave farms, an alternative energy source, will become increasingly prevalent in the future. It outlines three advantages: consistent power generation, environmental friendliness, and minimal visual impact on the landscape. However, the lecture disputes these claims.
The reading passage insists that wave farms can consistently generate power due to predictable wave patterns. In contrast, the lecturer suggests that the new technology used in wave farms could be prone to technical difficulties due to the harsh marine environment. This could lead to an unstable power supply, challenging the reading passage's claim of consistent power generation.
The reading passage also argues that wave farms are environmentally friendly because they do not emit greenhouse gases or risk ocean contamination. The lecturer disagrees, stating that the wave-energy converters contain toxic chemical lubricants that could potentially leak into the ocean and harm marine ecosystems. This refutes the claim of wave farms being environmentally benign.
Finally, the reading passage maintains that wave farms do not spoil the natural beauty of landscapes as their converters are small and float on or just below the water surface. However, the lecturer counters this claim by pointing out that these converters are brightly painted for visibility to shipping vessels and can be easily seen from shorelines, thereby impacting the visual aesthetics of the landscape.