The Pros and Cons of Banning Plastic - TOEFL Writing Integrated Practice Test

The TOEFL exam evaluates candidates on various abilities, placing particular importance on their communication skills. Among the test sections, the Writing Section is particularly significant, requiring diverse skills from TOEFL examinees.

This practice test aims to enhance your writing abilities, concentrating specifically on the Integrated Writing task of the TOEFL test. It aims to assist you in understanding task instructions, structuring responses effectively, and enhancing your performance in the TOEFL Writing segment. So, let's start your journey towards attaining your desired TOEFL score!

Writing Instructions

• You'll read a passage and listen to a lecture on an academic topic.
• You may take notes while listening to aid comprehension.
• Then you will write a response to a question that asks you about the lecture you heard.
• Answer the question comprehensively using information from the lecture. Avoid expressing personal opinions in the response.
• There is no strict word limit. However, an effective response is considered to be within 150 to 225 words.
• Your response will be assessed based on writing quality, content accuracy, and completeness.

Banning plastic has been suggested as a way to tackle the growing problem of plastic pollution. One major benefit of such a ban is the significant reduction in environmental harm. Plastics take hundreds of years to break down, and during this time, they turn into tiny particles that dirty soil and water. By getting rid of plastic products, we can greatly cut down on the amount of waste that ends up in landfills and oceans, helping to protect wildlife and natural habitats.

Another plus of banning plastic is that it encourages the use of eco-friendly alternatives. When plastic is no longer an option, consumers and manufacturers look for green materials like glass, metal, and biodegradable plastics. This change can drive new ideas in making sustainable goods and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, which are used to make traditional plastics. Also, using renewable resources can help fight climate change by lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

Banning plastic also has economic benefits. The costs of cleaning up plastic pollution are high and often fall on local governments and taxpayers. By reducing plastic waste, these funds can be used for other important services like education and healthcare. Moreover, the market for sustainable products is growing, and businesses that adapt to this trend can gain an edge, potentially creating jobs in the green economy.

Public health can also get better with a plastic ban. Plastics often contain harmful chemicals like BPA and certain other chemicals, which can seep into food and drinks, posing health risks to consumers. By getting rid of plastic packaging, we can lower exposure to these harmful substances, leading to better health outcomes for everyone.

Now play the audio.

Question

Provide a concise overview of the lecture's arguments, detailing their opposition to specific claims presented in the reading passage.

Wait! Before you check out the sample answers to the Writing Integrated task, let’s learn what a good TOEFL score is!

Sample Responses for the Integrated Writing Task on the Pros and Cons of Banning Plastic

Review the two sample responses provided, one at a mid-level and the other at a high-level. Comparing these examples will give you useful insights to help you enhance your own writing response.

High-Level Response

The reading passage advocates for banning plastic, highlighting its environmental, economic, and public health benefits. It argues that eliminating plastic can reduce pollution, encourage the use of eco-friendly alternatives, save cleanup costs, and improve public health by reducing exposure to harmful chemicals.

However, the lecture presents several counterarguments. The professor points out the impracticality of a plastic ban, noting that plastics are essential in many areas, especially in the medical field where sterility is crucial. This challenges the passage's claim that banning plastic is a straightforward solution. The lecture also raises concerns about the economic impact, emphasizing potential job losses in the plastic manufacturing sector and the financial burden on businesses to switch to alternative materials. This contradicts the reading's assertion that banning plastic has economic benefits.

Additionally, the professor argues that alternatives to plastic, such as glass and metal, are more expensive and could lead to higher costs for consumers, particularly affecting low-income families. This opposes the passage's point that a plastic ban would be economically beneficial. Lastly, the lecture questions the environmental benefits of a plastic ban, noting that some alternatives have their own environmental drawbacks and that biodegradable plastics require specific conditions to break down. This challenges the passage's claim that banning plastic would significantly reduce environmental harm.

Rater's Comment

The response effectively summarizes the main points from both the reading and the lecture, demonstrating a clear understanding of the material. It accurately presents the benefits of banning plastic as outlined in the reading, such as reducing pollution, encouraging eco-friendly alternatives, saving cleanup costs, and improving public health. The response then contrasts these points with the concerns raised in the lecture, such as the impracticality of a plastic ban, potential job losses, higher costs for consumers, and the environmental drawbacks of alternatives.

The response is well-organized and coherent, with each paragraph focusing on a specific point of comparison between the reading and the lecture. The use of transitions like "however," "additionally," and "lastly" helps to clearly signal the relationship between the two sources. The language is clear and concise, with strong control over grammar and vocabulary, making the response easy to read and understand.

Overall, the response successfully presents all key information from both the passage and the lecture, demonstrating a strong ability to synthesize and summarize complex material.

Mid-Level Response

The reading passage talks about the benefits of banning plastic, like reducing pollution and saving money. It says that banning plastic can help the environment by cutting down on waste and protecting wildlife. It also mentions that using eco-friendly alternatives reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and fight climate change.

The lecture, however, point out some problems with banning plastic. The professor says that plastics are important in many areas, especially in the medical field where they are needed for cleanliness and sterility. This make it hard to find good alternatives. The lecture also mentions that banning plastic could lead to job losses in the manufacturing sector and be a financial burden for businesses.

Another issue the lecture raises is the cost of alternatives to plastic. Materials like glass and metal are more expensive to make and transport, which can lead to higher prices for consumers. This can be especially hard for low-income families. The lecture also says that some alternatives have their own environmental downsides, like using more water and energy during production.

In conclusion, while the passege highlights the benefits of banning plastic, the lecture brings up important concerns that need to be addressed.

Rater's Comment

The response provides a basic summary of the main points from both the reading and the lecture, but it lacks depth and detail. It correctly identifies the benefits of banning plastic mentioned in the reading, such as reducing pollution and saving money. However, the explanation of these points is somewhat superficial and lacks specific examples or details.

The response also addresses the concerns raised in the lecture, such as the importance of plastics in the medical field, potential job losses, and the higher costs of alternatives. However, it does not fully explore these issues or provide specific examples from the lecture.

There are some grammatical errors in the response. The phrase "be a financial burden for businesses" could be more clearly connected to the rest of the sentence. Overall, the response demonstrates a basic understanding of the material but lacks the depth, detail, and coherence needed for a higher score.

Strategies for Taking the Integrated Writing Task on the Pros and Cons of Banning Plastic

Let's dive into the tips below and put them to the test with some sample practice problems in our next test paper. Here are some key strategies to help you approach this task with confidence.

• Focus on the instructions and how the passage relates to the lecture.
• Identify the main arguments, supporting evidence, and overall tone of the passage.
• Look for discrepancies or agreements between the viewpoints, evidence, or conclusions in the passage and the lecture.
• Outline your main points, including an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. Ensure a clear structure.
• Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of both the reading and lecture arguments, and highlight how they align or contradict each other.

Now that you've reviewed the sample responses and learned some useful writing strategies, it's time to put your skills into practice!

Also Read:

• The Role of Volunteerism in Community Development - TOEFL Writing Integrated Test
• The Role of Vaccination in Public Health - TOEFL Writing Integrated Test
• The Role of Urbanization in Environmental Degradation - TOEFL Writing Integrated Test
• The Role of Universal Healthcare in Reducing Health Inequality - TOEFL Writing Integrated Test