在托福獨立寫作的各類話題中，政府類話題總是讓人感到比較棘手的。有時會覺得找不到一些足夠理由，或是覺得文章的內容不夠充實。那么，在應對這類政府類話題的過程中，我們應該如何應對呢?下面我們就為大家詳細講解一下吧。

托福獨立寫作之政府投資類話題

涉及政府決策的題目，我們就要考慮政府做一件事情的目的是什么，不光是為這件事情本身，肯定有一些隱含因素，比如為了促進經濟、國家形象、人民生活、保護文化等等。切換不同的領域去考慮問題就能很順利地去寫出分論點來了。

托福獨立寫作之政府投資類真題

1、During times of economic crisis, which area of spending do you think the government should reduce: education, healthcare or support for the unemployed?

這道題是一道3選1的題目，該類題型必須在文章主體部分對所給的3個選項進行有效對比，明確說明問什么所選選項比剩余兩個選項更加合理。

毫無疑問，在正常情況下，教育、醫療和對失業人員的補助都是政府的基本職能。但是這道題目給出了特殊條件——在經濟危機的情況下，即政府本身財政資金已經不足，因此，我們應該在3個選項中選擇相對不重要的一個選項。我們一起來分析一下這三個領域的重要性：投資教育，為的是提高公民的文化素質，增長知識;投資醫療，為的是治病救人，確保人民有病能就醫;投資失業人員補助，為的是確保公民都有工作，能夠吃飽穿暖，保障基本生活水平，避免失業率過高帶來犯罪，破壞社會穩定。

這樣一分析，我們便能夠看出這3個領域的重要性之分。我們可以選擇：政府應該減少對教育的投入，因為減少對醫療的投入會危機生命，減少對失業人員的補助會危機社會穩定，而相對而言，減少教育投入只會減少公民接收知識的途徑和機會，危害相對較小，并且個人和組織也可以支持教育，不一定非得政府來進行。

2、Do you agree or disagree with the follow statement? Society benefits more from works of great artists than from political leaders.

這道題乍眼一看難度較高，很多同學會想不出理由。拿到題目我們應該問問自己誰是artists?誰是political leaders? 很明顯，artists包括painters、musicians、writers，而political leaders可以理解為president或chairman。

在這道題目里，我們應該想到political leaders其實就是政府意志的執行者，維護政府對國家的管理，所以我們可以把political leaders轉換成government：到底是藝術重要還是政府重要?我們可以給出觀點：政府，也就是political leaders更加重要。為什么呢?因為Political leaders ensure social stability and maintain social order. They have the legal power to formulate and enforce laws and regulations. The policies they made have great impact on various aspects of the society, including art, education, environment, employment, economy, medical care, and social security.

此外，我們也可以說political leaders代表了一個國家的形象，通過國事訪問和協約簽訂使得別的國家了解本國，并且決定了本國的發展，因此比藝術家更重要。

托福獨立寫作之政府投資類范文

政府和企業應該分享科技發明創造

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Governments and corporations should share all of their scientific discoveries with the rest of the world.

托福獨立寫作范文：

Sample Answer:

The majority of government and corporate research first enters the world in the form of commercial goods protected under intellectual property law. However, some believe that the results of their research should be freely shared for the good of humanity, rather than sold commercially. While I understand this well-intentioned sentiment, I have to disagree. I believe that such an idealistic system would actually be detrimental to scientific research overall.

First of all, research requires money. Equipment, staff, and facilities can quickly get expensive if you want to make any sort of reasonable progress. That is one reason why the majority of research conducted by governments and corporations (as opposed to say, non-profit organizations) is commercially driven. Take pharmaceutical research, for example: Every year, pharmaceutical companies pour billions of dollars a year into developing chemicals with medical applications. Of the countless chemicals they might investigate, only a select few turn out to be viable and make it to market. These companies have to sell their products at a price that allows them to recoup their massive research investment.

Secondly, the unfortunate reality is, the majority of people operate on greed principles. This is why capitalism works--it puts greedy people in competition with other greedy people, and as a byproduct the consumer benefits. This is not to say that all cases of research are self-serving, but if you take away the reward--that is, monetary incentive to do research--then progress in a lot of really valuable research would grind to a halt. That is why most countries have some form of intellectual property law: By protecting the creator's (or in this case, the researching organization's) right to commercially benefit from their work, governments incentivize the kind of research that society needs in order to progress. And usually, the fruits of such labor are eventually spread freely anyway: In the United States for example, work becomes public domain after a specified period of time.

Finally, as a matter of safety, certain types of research are better off not being freely distributed, at least at first. Nuclear energy research is an obvious example. Such research should be safeguarded by the countries that first develop it, in order to fully test its consequences before releasing it to the rest of the world. This is because other groups or countries may not have the expertise, resources, or ethical sensibility to apply it safely and responsibly. The same applies to any research into military technology. Can you imagine what would happen if you made such potentially destructive research available to people unable to comprehend its dangers? This would be akin to giving a child a knife.

I can understand why many wish that governments and corporations would release their research for free. However, for the reasons outlined above, such a system would just not be viable given the current realities we face. (Richard, 477 words)

本文部分信息來源于新通教育，如有任何問題，請聯系英語作文大全管理員進行修改或刪除。

更多 托福范文、托福考試寫作學習資料，請繼續關注 英語作文大全