IELTS Speaking Part 2

A Time When Someone You Know Found a Clever Solution to a Problem

最近一次出现于 2026年5–8月

题卡

Describe a time when someone you know found a clever solution to a problem

You should say:

  • Who the person is
  • What the problem was
  • What the person did
  • And explain why you think this was a clever solution to the problem

范文：6.5、7.0、7.5 三档

同一题目的三个版本，分别写到对应分数的真实水平——对比着看，能清楚看到分数之间到底差在哪里。

6.5 分

The explanation of the problem and solution is simple and literal, with one plain closing reason ('it turned something messy... into something short'), typical of Band 6.5.对问题和解决方法的解释简单而直白,结尾用一个平实的理由('它把一件乱糟糟的事……变成了一件简短的事')收尾,是6.5分的典型特征。

The person I want to talk about is Nam, a colleague at my studio who works on the same client projects as me.

The problem was that our overseas clients often sent feedback as long voice messages on Zalo, sometimes at strange hours because of the time difference between countries. We would listen once, forget half of it, and then have to play the message again and again just to find what they actually wanted changed.

What Nam did was quite simple, really. After listening to a voice message, he would immediately write three or four short lines in our shared document, like a small list of the real changes needed, with the date next to it. He did this every single time, without skipping it.

I think it was a clever solution because it turned something messy, a long spoken message, into something short and easy to check later. Nobody else thought to do something so simple so quickly. Now the whole team copies his habit, and we waste much less time replaying old messages.

查看中文翻译

我想说的人是Nam，我工作室的一位同事，他和我做的是同样的客户项目。

问题是，我们的海外客户经常在Zalo上发很长的语音消息来提反馈意见，有时候因为时差，消息发得很奇怪的时间。我们听一遍常常记不住一半内容，之后不得不反复重听，才能弄清楚客户到底想改什么。

Nam的做法其实很简单。他每次听完一条语音消息后，会立刻在我们共用的文档里写下三四行简短的要点，就像一份实际需要修改内容的小清单，并标上日期。他每一次都这样做，从不例外。

我觉得这是个聪明的办法，因为它把一条又长又乱的语音消息，变成了一份清楚、以后容易查看的记录。之前没有人想到要这么快、这么坚持地去做这件事。现在整个团队都学他这个习惯，我们重听旧语音消息浪费的时间少了很多。

176 词 · 约 2 分钟

为什么是这个分数

  • LR“he would immediately write three or four short lines in our shared document” — The sentence uses entirely concrete, functional vocabulary — 'write', 'short lines', 'shared document' — to describe exactly what Nam did, with the adverb 'immediately' the only word doing any real evaluative work by signalling promptness rather than delay. A higher-band answer might instead use a more specific term for the practice, but here plain description is sufficient to make the habit fully clear, which is exactly what the 6.5 lexical target rewards — clarity over range.这句话完全使用具体、功能性的词汇——'write'、'short lines'、'shared document'——来准确描述 Nam 具体做了什么,副词 'immediately' 是唯一真正起到评价作用的词,它标示的是及时而非拖延。更高分数段的答案可能会用一个更具体的术语来指称这一做法,但这里平实的描述已足以把这一习惯讲得完全清楚,这正是 Band 6.5 词汇目标所奖励的——清晰胜过范围。
  • GRA“We would listen once, forget half of it, and then have to play the message again and again” — Three actions share the same subject ('we') and are chained with commas and 'and', tracking a repeated cycle of frustration (listen, forget, replay) in the order it actually happens, using 'would' to mark it as a habitual past pattern. This coordination-based structure is accurate and easy to follow but doesn't attempt to compress the cycle into a more economical construction, such as a participial phrase describing the repeated replaying, the way a 7.0 answer might. It matches the 6.5 grammar target's preference for simple, correctly sequenced clauses over structural compression.三个动作共用同一个主语('we'),并用逗号和 'and' 串联在一起,按照实际发生的顺序追踪了一个反复出现的令人沮丧的循环(听、忘、重放),用 'would' 标示这是过去习惯性的模式。这种基于并列结构的写法准确且易于理解,但并未像 Band 7.0 答案可能做的那样,尝试把这个循环压缩成更精简的结构,比如用一个描述反复重放的分词短语。它符合 Band 6.5 语法目标的偏好:用简单、顺序正确的分句,而不追求结构上的压缩。
  • FC“I think it was a clever solution because it turned something messy, a long spoken message, into something short and easy to check later.” — The 'because' clause gives exactly one explanation for why the solution was clever — the messy-to-organised transformation — reinforced by the appositive 'a long spoken message' restating what 'something messy' refers to for clarity. The sentence doesn't go further to compare this solution against alternatives or reflect on why nobody else had thought of it, keeping the development to a single supported reason, which is the 6.5 Fluency & Coherence ceiling — one clear reason, directly stated, is sufficient.'because' 从句给出了恰好一个解释,说明为什么这个解决方案很巧妙——从杂乱到有条理的转变——并通过同位语 'a long spoken message' 来重申 'something messy' 具体指的是什么,以求清晰。这句话没有进一步去比较这个方案与其他替代方案,也没有反思为什么没有其他人想到这一点,而是把内容发展限制在一个有支撑的理由之内,这正是 6.5 分流利度与连贯性的天花板——一个清晰、直接陈述的理由就足够了。
7.0 分

The answer explains the mechanism of the fix in one extra layer of detail (parking early-leavers' bikes near the gate based on the list) and closes with a reflective generalisation about simple fixes, giving fuller development than 6.5's flatter description while staying less structurally varied than the 7.5 answer.答案在解释解决方案的运作机制时多加了一层细节(根据名单把早出门的人的车挪到靠近大门的位置),并以一句关于简单解决方案的反思性概括收尾,比6.5分那种平铺的描述展现出更充分的发展,但结构变化仍不如7.5分答案丰富。

The person I'd talk about is Mr. Bình, the caretaker of the apartment building where I live, who's worked here for around ten years and knows pretty much everyone by name.

The problem was our building's tiny parking area, which was never designed for the number of motorbikes people actually own now. Every morning there'd be at least one bike blocking someone else's, and whoever needed to leave first would end up banging on doors trying to find the owner, sometimes at six in the morning, which understandably annoyed a lot of residents.

What Mr. Bình did was surprisingly low-tech. He put up a large whiteboard by the entrance with every apartment number listed on it, and asked residents to write down roughly what time they'd normally leave in the morning next to their number. Nothing fancy, just a rough guide in marker pen that gets updated whenever someone's schedule changes. He also started parking the "early leavers'" bikes nearer the gate himself each night, based on that same list.

Why I think it was a clever solution is that it solved a people problem with a people-sized fix, rather than something complicated like an app or a booking system, which honestly nobody in our building would have bothered using properly anyway. It cost him almost nothing except a whiteboard and a bit of extra effort every evening, and it worked immediately because it matched how residents actually think and behave. The number of angry knocks on doors dropped to almost zero within a week, and a few of my neighbours have said they wish more problems in life had such a simple fix.

查看中文翻译

我想说的这个人是平先生(Mr. Bình),我住的公寓楼的管理员,他在这里工作了大概十年,几乎认识楼里的每一个人。

问题出在我们楼里那个小得可怜的停车场,它从来就不是按现在这么多的摩托车数量设计的。每天早上至少会有一辆车挡住别人的车,而需要先出门的人就得挨家挨户敲门找车主,有时候是早上六点,可想而知这让不少住户都很不高兴。

平先生想出的办法出乎意料地低技术含量。他在楼门口挂了一块大白板,上面列出了每一户的门牌号,请住户在自己的号码旁边大致写上平常早上出门的时间。没什么花哨的,就是用马克笔写的一个大致参考,谁的作息变了就随时更新。他还开始每天晚上根据这份名单,亲自把"早出门的人"的车挪到靠近大门的位置。

我觉得这是个聪明的解决办法,是因为它用一个恰到好处、贴合人的方式解决了一个关于人的问题,而不是搞什么复杂的东西,比如一个应用程序或者预约系统——老实说,我们楼里大概没人会真的认真去用那种东西。这个办法几乎不花他什么钱,除了一块白板和每晚多花一点力气,而且它立刻见效,因为它符合住户实际的想法和行为方式。愤怒敲门的次数在一周之内几乎降到了零,我有几个邻居还说,真希望生活中更多的问题都能有这么简单的解决办法。

274 词 · 约 2 分钟

为什么是这个分数

  • LR“solved a people problem with a people-sized fix” — This is a natural, slightly playful collocation built around repeating "people" for rhetorical effect, more inventive than a plain phrase like "found a simple solution," while still staying well within everyday, unpretentious vocabulary. This fits the 7.0 lexical target of going a step beyond plain vocabulary without tipping into genuine idiom. It also crystallizes the argument of the whole paragraph, that a low-tech, human-scale fix worked better than a complicated app would have.这是一种自然、略带俏皮的搭配,围绕重复使用 "people" 来制造修辞效果,比 "found a simple solution" 这样平淡的说法更具创意,同时依然牢牢立足于日常、不做作的词汇范围内。这符合7.0分词汇目标——在平实词汇基础上更进一步,但又不至于滑向真正的习语。它也凝练了整段论证的核心:一个低技术含量、以人为本的解决办法,效果反而胜过一个复杂的应用程序。
  • GRA“He put up a large whiteboard by the entrance with every apartment number listed on it, and asked residents to write down roughly what time they'd normally leave” — This coordinates two main actions, putting up the whiteboard and asking residents to write times, while embedding a prepositional phrase and an indirect question, "what time they'd normally leave," inside the second clause, handling multiple pieces of information accurately in one sentence. It's the comfortable, accurate complex grammar the 7.0 descriptor describes, doing real descriptive work by explaining exactly how the caretaker's low-tech system functioned. A 6.5 answer would likely split this into two or three shorter, simpler sentences.这句话把两个主要动作——立起白板、要求住户写下时间——协调组织在一起,同时在第二个分句里嵌入一个介词短语和一个间接问句 "what time they'd normally leave",在一个句子中准确处理了多条信息。这正是7.0分描述所说的从容而准确的复杂语法,实实在在地承担了描述功能,精确地解释了管理员那套低技术系统究竟是如何运作的。6.5分的答案很可能会把这拆成两三个更短、更简单的句子。
  • FC“a few of my neighbours have said they wish more problems in life had such a simple fix” — This reflective closing generalisation extends the specific parking story into a broader observation about simple solutions in general, rather than just restating that the whiteboard system worked. That's the kind of development beyond plain description the 7.0 descriptor rewards; a 6.5 answer would likely end with "now everyone knows when to move their bike." Attributing the observation to neighbours rather than stating it as the speaker's own opinion also adds a light touch of reported, communal validation to the conclusion.这段带有反思性的结尾概括,把具体的停车故事延伸成了一个关于简单解决方案的更普遍观察,而不只是重申白板系统确实有效。这正是7.0分描述所奖励的、超越单纯描述的发展方式;6.5分的答案很可能会以 "now everyone knows when to move their bike." 收尾。把这一观察归功于邻居,而不是表述为说话者自己的意见,也为结论增添了一层来自集体认同、经由转述的轻微色彩。
7.5 分

The parallel contrast built around the semicolon ('Everyone else had been trying... Đức made the system speak the client's language instead') shows the sentence variety and precise phrasing typical of Band 7.5.围绕分号构建的并列对比句('其他所有人都在努力……德(Đức)却让系统说起了客户的语言')展现出7.5分典型的句式多样性和精确措辞。

The person I'd talk about is Đức, a colleague at my studio who's been a designer for about the same time as me and who has a talent for solving problems sideways.

The problem was one every design studio knows. Clients would receive versions of a design — version one, version two, version three, then 'final', then 'final-final', then 'final-really' — and within a week nobody, including us, could remember which one had been approved. We'd present a screen, the client would say 'but that's not what we agreed', and we'd spend half an hour digging through emails. It wasted time, and worse, it made us look careless in front of the people paying us.

Everyone had tried the obvious fixes. Better file naming, a shared folder, a document tracking approvals. None of it stuck, because clients don't follow our systems; they follow their own memory.

What Đức did was stop naming files after our process and start naming them after the client's. Every version was labelled with the date and name of the meeting where the client had seen it — 'after the Tuesday call with Ms Lan', 'shown at the March review'. Nothing else changed. But clients remember meetings; they don't remember numbers. Suddenly, when someone said 'we agreed the blue one', we could say 'the blue one from the March review', and everyone knew exactly what was meant.

Why I think it was clever is that it cost nothing and touched nothing technical. Everyone else had been trying to make clients better at using our system; Đức made the system speak the client's language instead. He'd noticed that the problem wasn't files, it was memory, and memory works by events. The studio adopted it in a week, and two years later I still hear people from other companies asking how we keep our versions so clear. I tell them a colleague renamed some files. They never believe that's all it was.

查看中文翻译

我要说的这个人是Đức,我工作室里的一位同事,做设计的时间和我差不多,他很有一种从侧面解决问题的本事。

他解决的这个问题,是每个设计工作室都熟悉的。客户会收到一版又一版的设计稿——第一版、第二版、第三版,然后是'最终版',然后是'最终最终版',再然后是'真的最终版'——不到一周,没人,包括我们自己,还能记清哪一版是被批准的。我们展示一个页面,客户就会说'但这不是我们之前定的那版',于是我们得花半个小时翻邮件。这不仅浪费时间,更糟的是,这让我们在付钱的人面前显得很不专业。

大家都试过一些显而易见的办法:更规范的文件命名、一个共享文件夹、一份记录审批情况的文档。没有一个真正管用,因为客户根本不会遵循我们的系统;他们只会依靠自己的记忆。

Đức做的事情是:不再按照我们内部流程去命名文件,而是按照客户的方式去命名。每一版文件都标上日期和客户看到它的那次会议名称——比如'周二和Ms Lan通话后'、'三月评审会上展示'。除此之外什么都没变。但客户记得的是会议,不是编号。突然间,当有人说'我们说好的是那个蓝色版本',我们就能回答'是三月评审会上那个蓝色版本',所有人都立刻明白具体指的是哪一版。

我之所以觉得这个办法聪明,是因为它几乎不花钱,也没有涉及任何技术层面的改动。所有其他人都在努力让客户更好地适应我们的系统;而Đức则让系统去说客户的语言。他注意到问题的根源不在文件本身,而在记忆,而记忆是依靠事件来运作的。工作室一周之内就采用了这个方法,两年后的今天,我还常听到其他公司的人问我们是怎么把版本管理得这么清楚的。我告诉他们,只是一位同事把一些文件重新命名了而已。他们从来都不相信这就是全部真相。

324 词 · 约 2 分钟

为什么是这个分数

  • LR“Đức made the system speak the client's language instead” — This figurative phrase personifies the filing system as something capable of "speaking a language," a precise and idiomatic way of describing a design choice (renaming files after client meetings rather than internal version numbers) that a Band 6.5 or 7.0 answer would more likely state literally ("Đức changed how the files were named so clients could understand them"). The metaphor also captures the exact insight the story is building toward -- that the fix worked because it adapted to how clients think, not how designers think. It's reinforced later in the same paragraph ("memory works by events"), showing the image isn't a one-off flourish but the organising idea of the whole account.这个比喻性短语把文件归档系统拟人化为能够"说一种语言"的事物,这是对一项设计选择(按客户会议而非内部版本号来重命名文件)的精准、习语化的描述,而Band 6.5或7.0的答案更可能用字面说法来表达("Đức changed how the files were named so clients could understand them")。这个隐喻也恰好抓住了这个故事一直在铺垫的洞见——这个解决方案之所以有效,是因为它适应了客户的思维方式,而不是设计师的思维方式。同一段落后面还再次强化了这一点("memory works by events"),说明这个意象并非一次性的点缀,而是贯穿整个叙述的组织性理念。
  • GRA“Everyone else had been trying to make clients better at using our system; Đức made the system speak the client's language instead.” — The semicolon joins two grammatically parallel but contrasting clauses without a connecting word, relying on the structural mirroring itself (both clauses share the pattern subject + verb + object) to signal the contrast -- a controlled, wide-ranging grammatical choice beyond the simpler coordination with "but" a Band 6.5 or 7.0 speaker would use instead. The past perfect continuous in the first clause ("had been trying") also correctly marks an ongoing failed effort before Đức's different approach, adding a layer of aspectual precision. This sentence functions as the analytical turning point of the whole story, so the grammar is carrying the argument's central contrast, not just describing events in sequence.分号在没有连接词的情况下,连接了两个语法上对称但内容上对比鲜明的从句,依靠结构本身的镜像对称(两个从句都遵循主语+动词+宾语的模式)来传达对比——这是一种有控制力、范围较广的语法选择,超越了Band 6.5或7.0考生会用的更简单的、以"but"连接的并列结构。第一个从句中的过去完成进行时("had been trying")也准确地标记了在Đức采用不同方法之前一直持续、却未能成功的努力,增添了一层时态上的精确性。这句话是整个故事的分析性转折点,所以这里的语法承担的是整个论证的核心对比,而不仅仅是按顺序描述事件。
  • FC“He'd noticed that the problem wasn't files, it was memory, and memory works by events.” — This is an analytical, near-cleft insight that reframes the practical problem (confusing file versions) as an abstract one (how human memory works), a genuine piece of interpretive reasoning rather than a plain description of what Đức did -- exactly the reflective coherence the 7.5 descriptor highlights. A Band 6.5 or 7.0 answer would more likely stop at describing the renaming system itself without this underlying explanation of why it worked. The repeated structure ("the problem wasn't X, it was Y") also builds toward the final, almost aphoristic claim ("memory works by events"), giving the answer's conclusion real intellectual weight rather than a flat summary.这是一种近乎强调句式的分析性洞见,把一个实际问题(文件版本令人困惑)重新定义为一个抽象问题(人类记忆如何运作),这是真正意义上的阐释性推理,而不只是描述Đức做了什么——正是Band 7.5描述所强调的那种反思性连贯。Band 6.5或7.0的答案更可能只停留在描述重命名系统本身,而没有这层关于其为何奏效的底层解释。重复出现的结构("the problem wasn't X, it was Y")也一步步铺垫到最后那句近乎格言的论断("memory works by events"),让答案的结论具有真正的思想分量,而不只是一个平淡的总结。

各考试时段出题记录

  • Describe a time when someone you know found a clever solution to a problem2026年5–8月

Part 3 追问

这些是考官在该题卡之后提出的讨论题，已编写范文的题目附有参考答案。

  1. 1. Do you think children are born clever, or do they learn to be clever?

    2026年5–8月
    查看这道题的6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5三档对比
    6.5 分

    States the opening claim and its evidence in one short, plain sentence, without the extra framing the higher bands add.用一个简短、平实的句子陈述了开头的论点及其证据,没有更高分段所加的额外铺陈。

    Both, I think, and my sister's children are proof. They have the same parents and the same house, but one takes apart clocks while the other takes apart arguments, so each was born with something different. But what they do with it depends on what's around them — the clock child had a grandfather with tools, and the arguing child had a mother who debated at dinner. So children are born with different abilities, and being clever happens when that ability meets a chance. Without books or attention, a quick child can look ordinary by ten.

    查看中文翻译

    我认为两者都有,我姐姐的孩子们就是证明。他们有着相同的父母、相同的家,可一个喜欢拆钟表,另一个喜欢拆解争论,所以他们生来就带着不同的东西。但他们如何运用这些天赋,取决于周围的环境——喜欢拆钟表的孩子有一个拥有工具的外公,而喜欢辩论的孩子有一个在饭桌上就爱争论的母亲。所以孩子们生来就有不同的能力,而聪明才智则是在这种能力遇上机会时才会发生的事情。如果没有书籍或关注,一个反应快的孩子到十岁时也可能显得平平无奇。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“Both, I think, and my sister's children are proof.” — This opening states the position and evidence together in one short, plain sentence, fitting 6.5's style. 7.0 extends this with 'my evidence', and 7.5 adds 'for it', both giving the same claim a slightly more considered, personal framing.这个开头用一个简短、平实的句子把立场和证据放在一起陈述,符合6.5分的风格。7.0分答案加上了"my evidence"来扩展,而7.5分答案加上了"for it",两者都为同一论点赋予了略微更斟酌、更具个人色彩的表达。
    • LR“a mother who debated at dinner” — This is plain, functional phrasing. 7.5 extends it slightly to 'a mother who debated at the dinner table', a marginally fuller and more natural image for the same idea.这是一种平实、功能性的表达。7.5分答案把它略微扩展为"a mother who debated at the dinner table",这是一个稍微更完整、更自然的意象,表达同一个想法。
    • GRA“Without books or attention, a quick child can look ordinary by ten.” — A short fronted conditional, correct and clear. 7.5 extends a very similar idea into a longer sentence with a relative clause, showing more developed modification.一个简短的前置条件句,正确且清晰。7.5分答案把一个非常相似的想法扩展成一个带有定语从句的更长句子,展现出更成熟的修饰手法。
    7.0 分

    Adds the hedge 'Honestly' and reuses the phrase 'my evidence' to give the opening a more personal, spoken framing.加上了缓冲语"Honestly",并重复使用短语"my evidence",让开头呈现出更具个人色彩、更口语化的铺陈。

    Honestly, I think it's both, and my sister's children are my evidence. They have the same parents, the same house and the same school, yet one takes apart clocks while the other takes apart arguments — there's clearly something each of them arrived with. But what they've done with it depends entirely on what was around them: the clock child had a grandfather with tools, while the arguing child had a mother who debated at dinner. I'd say children are born with different raw abilities, and cleverness is really what happens when that ability meets an opportunity. A quick child with no books or attention will look pretty ordinary by ten.

    查看中文翻译

    老实说,我认为两者都有,我姐姐的孩子们就是我的证据。他们有着相同的父母、相同的家、相同的学校,可一个喜欢拆钟表,另一个喜欢拆解争论——显然每个人生来就带着某种不同的东西。但他们如何运用这些天赋,完全取决于周围的环境:喜欢拆钟表的孩子有一个拥有工具的外公,而喜欢辩论的孩子有一个在饭桌上就爱争论的母亲。我想说,孩子们生来就有不同的原始能力,而聪明才智其实就是这种能力遇上机会时所发生的事情。一个没有书籍、缺乏关注的反应快的孩子,到十岁时看起来会相当平庸。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“Honestly, I think it's both, and my sister's children are my evidence.” — The hedge 'Honestly' gives this opening a more personal, spoken quality than 6.5's flatter version. 7.5 reaches a similar effect by adding 'for it' at the end instead of the hedge, a subtly more compact way of framing the same claim.缓冲语"Honestly"让这个开头比6.5分中更平淡的版本更具个人色彩、更口语化。7.5分答案则通过在句末加上"for it"而不是使用缓冲语,达到了类似的效果,这是一种略微更精炼的表达同一论点的方式。
    • LR“there's clearly something each of them arrived with” — This is a precise, slightly abstract phrase for innate ability, reused identically at 7.5. It shows that at the top two bands a well-chosen phrase can recur while the surrounding sentence structure grows more demanding.这是一个精确、略带抽象色彩的短语,用来指与生俱来的能力,在7.5分中被原样重复使用。这说明在最高两个分段,一个措辞恰当的短语可以重复出现,而周围的句子结构则变得更具挑战性。
    • GRA“the clock child had a grandfather with tools, while the arguing child had a mother who debated at dinner” — This clause uses 'while' to balance two parallel examples, correct and fluent. 7.5 keeps the same parallel content but replaces 'while' with a semicolon, a marginally tighter and more formal way of joining the same balanced contrast.这个从句用"while"来平衡两个平行的例子,正确且流畅。7.5分答案保留了相同的平行内容,但用分号取代了"while",这是一种略微更紧凑、更正式的方式来连接同样平衡的对比。
    7.5 分

    Closes with a semicolon-linked metaphorical pair, 'Talent is the seed; everything else is weather', that neither lower band attempts.以一对用分号连接的比喻句收尾,"Talent is the seed; everything else is weather",这是较低两个分段都没有尝试过的手法。

    Both, I'd say, and my sister's children are my evidence for it. They share the same parents, the same house and the same school, and yet one takes apart clocks while the other takes apart arguments — there's clearly something each of them arrived with. What they've done with it, though, depends entirely on what was around them: the clock child had a grandfather with tools; the arguing child had a mother who debated at the dinner table. I'd say children are born with different raw abilities and different appetites, and cleverness is essentially what happens when an appetite meets an opportunity. A quick child raised in a home with no books and no attention will look thoroughly ordinary by ten. Talent is the seed; everything else is weather.

    查看中文翻译

    我想说两者都有,我姐姐的孩子们就是我这一说法的证据。他们有着相同的父母、相同的家、相同的学校,可一个喜欢拆钟表,另一个喜欢拆解争论——显然每个人生来就带着某种不同的东西。然而,他们如何运用这些天赋,完全取决于周围的环境:喜欢拆钟表的孩子有一个拥有工具的外公;喜欢辩论的孩子有一个在饭桌上就爱争论的母亲。我想说,孩子们生来就有不同的原始能力和不同的兴趣倾向,而聪明才智本质上就是兴趣倾向遇上机会时所发生的事情。一个在没有书籍、缺乏关注的家庭中长大的反应快的孩子,到十岁时会显得彻头彻尾地平庸。天赋是种子;其余的一切都是天气。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“Talent is the seed; everything else is weather.” — This closing uses a semicolon to join two short, metaphorical statements into one compact, almost proverbial line, giving the ending real rhetorical shape. Neither 6.5 nor 7.0 attempts this kind of figurative, balanced final image.这个结尾用分号把两个简短的比喻性陈述连接成一句紧凑、近乎格言的话,赋予结尾真正的修辞形态。6.5分和7.0分都没有尝试过这种比喻性、平衡感十足的结尾意象。
    • LR“different raw abilities and different appetites” — This adds the precise word 'appetites' alongside 'abilities', distinguishing inborn skill from inborn drive, a more nuanced pairing than the plainer 'different abilities' used at 6.5 and 7.0. It shows the kind of exact vocabulary expected at 7.5.这里加上了精确的词"appetites",与"abilities"并列,区分了天生的技能和天生的驱动力,这是一种比6.5分和7.0分中更平实的"different abilities"更细腻的搭配。它展现出7.5分所要求的那种精确词汇。
    • GRA“the clock child had a grandfather with tools; the arguing child had a mother who debated at the dinner table” — This sentence uses a semicolon to balance two parallel clauses with identical grammatical shape, a more sophisticated punctuation choice than the 'while' clause at 7.0. That controlled parallelism is a hallmark of the grammatical range expected at 7.5.这个句子用分号来平衡两个语法结构完全相同的平行从句,这是一种比7.0分中的"while"从句更精致的标点选择。这种受控的平行结构正是7.5分所要求的语法范围的标志。

  2. 2. How important are schools in helping children become more clever?

    2026年5–8月
    查看这道题的6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5三档对比
    6.5 分

    Closes with a short, direct sentence, unlike the higher bands' more developed final structures.以一个简短、直接的句子收尾,不同于更高分段更成熟的结尾结构。

    Very important, though not always in the way schools think. A maths teacher in Hue taught us to guess the answer before calculating it, so we would notice if a result was wrong, and that one habit has helped me more than anything else in the syllabus. Schools also give children things a home can't, like peers to compete with. The problem is that most schooling rewards memory and following rules, which isn't cleverness, and school can make a bright child duller instead of sharper. I think the teacher matters more than the school itself.

    查看中文翻译

    非常重要,不过并不总是按照学校自己所想的那种方式重要。顺化的一位数学老师教我们在计算之前先猜测答案,这样我们就能察觉出结果是否有误,而这一个习惯,比教学大纲里的任何其他内容都更有帮助。学校也能给孩子一些家庭给不了的东西,比如可以竞争的同龄人。问题在于,大多数学校教育奖励的是记忆力和遵守规则,而这并不是真正的聪明才智,学校有时反而会让一个聪明的孩子变得迟钝,而不是更敏锐。我认为老师比学校本身更重要。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“Very important, though not always in the way schools think.” — This opening gives the qualified answer in one plain sentence, suiting 6.5's direct style. Both higher bands add 'themselves' to sharpen the target of the qualification, and 7.5 pairs it with the stronger opening adverb 'genuinely'.这个开头用一个平实的句子给出了带有限定的回答,符合6.5分的直接风格。两个更高分段都加上了"themselves"来使限定的对象更明确,而7.5分答案还搭配了更有力的开头副词"genuinely"。
    • LR“that one habit has helped me more than anything else in the syllabus” — This is a clear, functional claim. 7.5 intensifies it to 'served me better than anything else in the whole syllabus', a slightly more emphatic and idiomatic version of the same statement.这是一个清晰、功能性的论断。7.5分答案把它强化为"served me better than anything else in the whole syllabus",这是同一陈述略微更强调、更地道的版本。
    • GRA“I think the teacher matters more than the school itself.” — A short, simple closing sentence, correct and direct. 7.5 rephrases the same closing with an inserted hedge and a comparative phrase, showing a more developed final structure.一个简短、简单的结尾句,正确且直接。7.5分答案用插入的缓冲语和一个比较性短语重新表述了同样的结尾,展现出更成熟的收尾结构。
    7.0 分

    Adds 'themselves' to the opening qualifier, sharpening what exactly is being qualified beyond 6.5's plainer version.在开头的限定语中加上了"themselves",使被限定的对象比6.5分中更平实的版本更明确。

    Honestly, very important, though not always in the way schools themselves think. A maths teacher in Hue taught us to guess the answer before calculating it, so we'd notice when a result seemed absurd — and that single habit has served me better than anything else in the syllabus. Schools also give children things a home can't: peers to compete with, subjects parents don't know, and someone who notices a talent the family missed. The limit is that most schooling rewards memory and obedience, which aren't really cleverness, and a school can dull a bright child just as easily as it sharpens one. I'd say the teacher matters more than the institution.

    查看中文翻译

    老实说,非常重要,不过并不总是按照学校自己所想的那种方式重要。顺化的一位数学老师教我们在计算之前先猜测答案,这样我们就能在结果看起来荒谬时立刻察觉——而这一个习惯,比教学大纲里任何其他内容都更让我受益。学校也能给孩子一些家庭给不了的东西:可以竞争的同龄人、父母不懂的学科,以及一个能发现家人都错过的天赋的人。局限在于,大多数学校教育奖励的是记忆力和服从,而这些并不是真正的聪明才智,一所学校既能让一个聪明的孩子变得迟钝,也能让他变得更敏锐,两者的可能性一样大。我想说,老师比这个机构本身更重要。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“Honestly, very important, though not always in the way schools themselves think.” — The hedge 'Honestly' gives this opening a more spoken, personal quality than 6.5's flatter version. 7.5 achieves a similarly considered tone without the hedge, using 'rarely' instead of 'not always', a marginally more precise adverb.缓冲语"Honestly"让这个开头比6.5分中更平淡的版本更口语化、更具个人色彩。7.5分答案在没有使用缓冲语的情况下达到了类似的斟酌语气,而是用"rarely"取代了"not always",这是一个略微更精确的副词。
    • LR“someone who notices a talent the family missed” — This is a clear, functional relative clause. 7.5 extends the same idea with 'missed entirely', a small intensifier that sharpens the same point without changing the core vocabulary.这是一个清晰、功能性的定语从句。7.5分答案用"missed entirely"扩展了同一想法,这是一个小小的强化词,在不改变核心词汇的情况下让同一论点更加尖锐。
    • GRA“The limit is that most schooling rewards memory and obedience, which aren't really cleverness, and a school can dull a bright child just as easily as it sharpens one.” — This sentence uses a relative clause plus a comparative 'just as easily as' structure, correct and fluent. 7.5 keeps an almost identical structure but replaces 'which aren't really' with 'neither of which is actually', a marginally more formal and precise variant.这个句子使用了一个定语从句加上一个比较结构"just as easily as",正确且流畅。7.5分答案保留了几乎相同的结构,但用"neither of which is actually"取代了"which aren't really",这是一个略微更正式、更精确的变体。
    7.5 分

    Closes with an inserted hedge and a comparative phrase, 'matters rather more than the institution around them', extending the plainer closings below.以插入的缓冲语和一个比较性短语收尾,"matters rather more than the institution around them",扩展了下面较平实的结尾。

    Genuinely important, though rarely in the way schools themselves imagine. A maths teacher in Hue once taught us to guess the answer before calculating it, so we'd notice the moment a result looked absurd — and that single habit has served me better than anything else in the whole syllabus. Schools also hand children things a home simply can't provide: peers to compete against, subjects parents have never heard of, and someone who notices a talent the family missed entirely. The catch is that most schooling rewards memory and obedience, neither of which is actually cleverness, and a school can dull a bright child just as easily as it sharpens one. The teacher, I'd argue, matters rather more than the institution around them.

    查看中文翻译

    真正重要,不过很少是按照学校自己所想象的那种方式重要。顺化的一位数学老师曾经教我们在计算之前先猜测答案,这样我们就能在结果显得荒谬的那一刻立刻察觉——而这一个习惯,比整个教学大纲里任何其他内容都更让我受益。学校也能给孩子一些家庭根本无法提供的东西:可以竞争的同龄人、父母闻所未闻的学科,以及一个能发现家人完全错过的天赋的人。症结在于,大多数学校教育奖励的是记忆力和服从,这两者其实都不是真正的聪明才智,一所学校能让一个聪明的孩子变得迟钝,也一样能让他变得更敏锐。我认为,老师比周围的这个机构要重要得多。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“The teacher, I'd argue, matters rather more than the institution around them.” — The inserted hedge 'I'd argue' and the phrase 'the institution around them' give this closing more rhetorical weight and precision than the plainer versions at 6.5 and 7.0. It reads as a more deliberately argued final claim.插入的缓冲语"I'd argue"和短语"the institution around them"给这个结尾赋予了比6.5分和7.0分中更平实的版本更强的修辞分量和精确度。它读起来像是一个更经过深思熟虑的最终论断。
    • LR“hand children things a home simply can't provide” — 'Hand children things' is a slightly more vivid, active verb choice than the plain 'give children things' used at the lower bands, and 'provide' adds a note of formality. It shows the kind of precise, natural phrasing that marks 7.5 vocabulary."Hand children things"是一个比较低分段中平实的"give children things"略微更生动、更主动的动词选择,而"provide"则增添了一丝正式感。它展现出标志着7.5分词汇的那种精确、自然的措辞。
    • GRA“The catch is that most schooling rewards memory and obedience, neither of which is actually cleverness, and a school can dull a bright child just as easily as it sharpens one.” — This sentence uses 'neither of which' instead of 'which aren't', a more formal and precise relative construction. That small but deliberate grammatical refinement within an otherwise shared structure is characteristic of the top band's control.这个句子用"neither of which"取代了"which aren't",这是一种更正式、更精确的定语结构。这种在共享结构中体现出的细小却刻意的语法打磨,正是最高分段掌控力的特征。

  3. 3. Do you agree or disagree that very clever children are usually happy?

    2026年5–8月
    查看这道题的6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5三档对比
    6.5 分

    States the disagreement plainly with 'I' included, unlike the higher bands' more compressed openings.用带有"I"的完整句子平实地陈述了不同意的立场,不同于更高分段更精炼的开头。

    I disagree, or at least I doubt the word 'usually'. There was a boy at my school two years ahead, and I remember him eating lunch alone; every time he was moved up to be challenged, he lost the friends he'd made. Very clever children see problems others don't notice, get bored by lessons made for average students, and feel lonely among people who share nothing with them. Adults add pressure too. Some clever children are happy, especially if their family values them for more than results, but intelligence and happiness are different things.

    查看中文翻译

    我不同意,或者至少我对"usually"这个词感到怀疑。我学校里有一个高我两届的男孩,我记得他总是一个人吃午饭;每次他被跳级去接受更有挑战性的教育,他就会失去刚交到的朋友。非常聪明的孩子能看到别人注意不到的问题,会因为为普通学生设计的课程而感到无聊,并且会在和自己毫无共同话题的人群中感到孤独。成年人也在给他们施加压力。有些聪明的孩子确实很快乐,尤其是当他们的家庭看重的不只是他们的成绩时,但聪明才智和快乐是两码事。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“I disagree, or at least I doubt the word 'usually'.” — This opening states the disagreement and its limit plainly, suiting 6.5's style. Both higher bands drop 'I' before 'doubt' for a slightly more compressed, confident opening, and 7.5 adds 'rather strongly' at the end for extra emphasis.这个开头平实地陈述了不同意的态度及其限定,符合6.5分的风格。两个更高分段都在"doubt"前去掉了"I",呈现出一种略微更精炼、更自信的开头,而7.5分答案还在结尾加上了"rather strongly"以进一步强调。
    • LR“get bored by lessons made for average students” — This is plain, functional wording. 7.5 upgrades this to 'lessons pitched at the average student', a more precise and idiomatic verb choice for the same idea.这是一种平实、功能性的措辞。7.5分答案把它升级为"lessons pitched at the average student",这是同一想法更精确、更地道的动词选择。
    • GRA“Some clever children are happy, especially if their family values them for more than results, but intelligence and happiness are different things.” — This sentence uses 'especially if' and 'but' to add a condition and a contrast, correct and reasonably developed. 7.5 extends a similar sentence further with an added clause about social cleverness and a final result clause, showing a longer, more layered structure.这个句子用"especially if"和"but"加入了一个条件和一个对比,正确且相当成熟。7.5分答案把一个类似的句子进一步扩展,加入了一个关于社交聪明才智的从句和一个最终的结果从句,展现出更长、更有层次的结构。
    7.0 分

    Drops the second 'I' before 'doubt' for a more compressed, confident opening than 6.5's fuller version.在"doubt"前去掉了第二个"I",使开头比6.5分更完整的版本更精炼、更自信。

    Honestly, I'd disagree, or at least doubt the word 'usually'. There was a boy at my school two years ahead of everyone in every subject, and I mostly remember him eating lunch alone; each time he was moved up a class to be challenged, he lost the few friends he'd managed to make. Very clever children often notice problems others don't, get bored by lessons built for the average student, and can end up lonely among people who don't share their interests. Adults also pile expectations onto them. Some are perfectly happy, especially where the family values them for more than just results — but intelligence and happiness really are separate gifts.

    查看中文翻译

    老实说,我不同意,或者至少我对"usually"这个词感到怀疑。我学校里有一个在所有科目上都比大家高两个年级的男孩,我印象最深的是他总是一个人吃午饭;每次他被跳级去接受更有挑战性的教育,他都会失去好不容易交到的少数几个朋友。非常聪明的孩子往往能注意到别人注意不到的问题,会因为为普通学生设计的课程而感到无聊,还可能在和没有共同兴趣的人群中变得孤独。成年人也在不断给他们堆砌期望。有些孩子完全是快乐的,尤其是家庭看重他们不只是因为成绩的时候——但聪明才智和快乐,其实是两种截然不同的天赋。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“Honestly, I'd disagree, or at least doubt the word 'usually'.” — The hedge 'Honestly' gives this opening a more personal, spoken quality than 6.5's flatter version. 7.5 achieves a similarly weighed tone without the hedge, adding 'rather strongly' at the end instead, a marginally more emphatic closing touch.缓冲语"Honestly"让这个开头比6.5分中更平淡的版本更具个人色彩、更口语化。7.5分答案在没有使用缓冲语的情况下达到了类似的斟酌语气,而是在结尾加上了"rather strongly",这是一个略微更强调的收尾细节。
    • LR“he lost the few friends he'd managed to make” — 'Managed to make' is a natural, idiomatic verb phrase suggesting effort. 7.5 varies this to 'only just made', a slightly different but equally natural way of emphasising how recently and fragile those friendships were."Managed to make"是一个自然、地道的动词短语,暗示了付出的努力。7.5分答案把它变换为"only just made",一个略有不同但同样自然的表达方式,用来强调这些友谊建立得有多晚、多脆弱。
    • GRA“Some are perfectly happy, especially where the family values them for more than just results — but intelligence and happiness really are separate gifts.” — This sentence uses 'especially where' and a dash-linked contrast, a fluent, well-developed structure. 7.5 extends a very similar sentence with an added clause about social cleverness before the dash, and closes with a further result clause, showing a more elaborate version of the same frame.这个句子用"especially where"和一个用破折号连接的对比,构成了一个流畅、发展充分的结构。7.5分答案把一个非常相似的句子进一步扩展,在破折号前加入了一个关于社交聪明才智的从句,并以一个进一步的结果从句收尾,展现出同一框架更精细的版本。
    7.5 分

    Adds a final consequence clause, 'having one doesn't guarantee the other', giving the closing a more complete, rounded-off conclusion.加上了一个最终的结果从句,"having one doesn't guarantee the other",让结尾呈现出更完整、更圆满的结论。

    I'd disagree, or at least doubt the word 'usually' rather strongly. There was a boy at my school two years ahead of everyone in every subject, and I mostly remember him eating lunch alone; every time he was moved up a class to be challenged, he lost the handful of friends he'd only just made. Very clever children often notice problems that pass everyone else by, get bored by lessons pitched at the average student, and can end up genuinely lonely among people who share none of their interests. Adults, meanwhile, tend to pile expectations onto them. Some are perfectly happy, especially where their cleverness is social as well as academic and the family values them for more than results — but intelligence and happiness are simply different gifts, and having one doesn't guarantee the other.

    查看中文翻译

    我不同意,或者至少我相当强烈地怀疑"usually"这个词。我学校里有一个在所有科目上都比大家高两个年级的男孩,我印象最深的是他总是一个人吃午饭;每次他被跳级去接受更有挑战性的教育,他都会失去那一小撮他刚刚才交到的朋友。非常聪明的孩子往往能注意到那些从别人眼皮底下溜走的问题,会因为为普通学生量身定制的课程而感到无聊,还可能在和毫无共同兴趣的人群中真正感到孤独。与此同时,成年人往往不断给他们堆砌期望。有些孩子确实完全快乐,尤其是当他们的聪明既体现在社交上也体现在学业上,而且家庭看重他们不只是因为成绩的时候——但聪明才智和快乐,终究是两种不同的天赋,拥有其中一种,并不能保证拥有另一种。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“but intelligence and happiness are simply different gifts, and having one doesn't guarantee the other” — This closing adds a final consequence clause onto the claim, giving the answer a more complete, rounded-off conclusion. Neither 6.5 nor 7.0 extends the closing this far; both stop at the simpler statement that the two are 'different'.这个结尾在论点上加上了一个最终的结果从句,让答案呈现出更完整、更圆满的结论。6.5分和7.0分都没有把结尾延展到这一步;两者都止步于两者"different"这一更简单的陈述。
    • LR“problems that pass everyone else by” — 'Pass everyone else by' is a vivid, idiomatic way of describing something others fail to notice, more natural than the plain 'problems other people don't notice' used at 6.5. It shows the kind of precise, image-based vocabulary that marks 7.5."Pass everyone else by"是一种生动、地道的表达方式,用来描述别人没有注意到的事情,比6.5分中平实的"problems other people don't notice"更自然。它展现出标志着7.5分的那种精确、具画面感的词汇。
    • GRA“Some are perfectly happy, especially where their cleverness is social as well as academic and the family values them for more than results — but intelligence and happiness are simply different gifts, and having one doesn't guarantee the other.” — This sentence adds an extra coordinated condition before the dash and a further result clause after it, managing more layers of qualification than either lower band. That capacity to keep extending a sentence with precisely judged detail is a hallmark of 7.5 grammar.这个句子在破折号前加入了一个额外的并列条件,并在其后加入了一个进一步的结果从句,比两个较低分段处理了更多层次的限定条件。这种能够用精确判断的细节不断扩展一个句子的能力,正是7.5分语法的标志。

  4. 4. Why may a person be very good at one thing, but not another?

    2026年5–8月
    查看这道题的6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5三档对比
    6.5 分

    Chains three clauses with plain 'and... so' connectors, unlike the higher bands' tighter subordination.用平实的"and... so"连接词串联了三个从句,不同于更高分段更紧密的从属结构。

    Đức can find the flaw in a complicated system in seconds, but he can't remember where he parked his motorbike, and I don't think that's really a contradiction. Brains are separate abilities, not one skill. Some of it is wiring — spatial, verbal, and social skills use different parts of the mind and grow differently. Much is practice, since people excel at what they've done often and stay clumsy at what they've avoided. Interest decides where the practice goes, and attention is limited, so being deep in one area often costs you in another.

    查看中文翻译

    阿德能在几秒钟内找出一个复杂系统里的漏洞,却记不住自己的摩托车停在哪里,我不认为这真的算是矛盾。大脑的各项能力是彼此独立的,而不是一种单一的技能。有一部分是天生的线路——空间、语言和社交技能使用大脑的不同区域,发展方式也各不相同。很大一部分则是练习,因为人们会擅长自己经常做的事,而在自己一直回避的事情上依然笨拙。兴趣决定了练习投向哪个方向,而注意力是有限的,所以在一个领域深耕往往会在另一个领域付出代价。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“Đức can find the flaw in a complicated system in seconds, but he can't remember where he parked his motorbike, and I don't think that's really a contradiction.” — This opening presents the contrast and its interpretation in one plain, direct sentence, suiting 6.5's style. Both higher bands drop the explicit contrastive 'but' in favour of an 'and' plus a dash-linked interpretation, giving the same idea a slightly more integrated flow.这个开头用一个平实、直接的句子呈现了对比及其解读,符合6.5分的风格。两个更高分段都放弃了明确的转折词"but",改用"and"加上一个用破折号连接的解读,让同样的想法流动得更连贯。
    • LR“Some of it is wiring — spatial, verbal, and social skills use different parts of the mind and grow differently.” — This is a clear, functional list. 7.5 extends the same list to include 'musical' skills and upgrades the verb to 'draw on', a wider and more precise vocabulary choice for the identical idea.这是一个清晰、功能性的列表。7.5分答案把这个列表扩展加入了"musical"技能,并把动词升级为"draw on",为同一个想法提供了更宽广、更精确的词汇选择。
    • GRA“Interest decides where the practice goes, and attention is limited, so being deep in one area often costs you in another.” — This sentence chains three clauses with 'and' and 'so', correct but loosely coordinated. 7.5 tightens a similar idea with 'since' instead, and replaces 'costs you in' with the more precise 'bought with neglect of', showing tighter subordination and vocabulary.这个句子用"and"和"so"把三个从句串联起来,正确但连接较为松散。7.5分答案用"since"来收紧一个类似的想法,并用更精确的"bought with neglect of"取代了"costs you in",展现出更紧密的从属结构和词汇。
    7.0 分

    Adds 'Honestly' and a dash-linked interpretation instead of 6.5's explicit 'but', giving the opening more integrated flow.加上了"Honestly",并用一个破折号连接的解读来代替6.5分中明确的"but",让开头呈现出更连贯的流畅感。

    Honestly, Đức can spot the flaw in a complicated system within seconds and cannot reliably remember where he parked his motorbike, and I don't think that's really a contradiction — brains seem to be a collection of separate abilities rather than one general engine. Some of it is wiring: spatial, verbal and social skills use different parts of the mind and develop unevenly. Much of it, though, is practice; people get very good at what they've done a thousand times and stay clumsy at whatever they've avoided. Interest decides where the practice actually goes, and since attention is limited, depth in one area is often bought with neglect of another.

    查看中文翻译

    老实说,阿德能在几秒钟内发现一个复杂系统里的漏洞,却记不住自己的摩托车停在哪里,我不认为这真的算是矛盾——大脑看起来更像是一系列独立能力的集合,而不是一台单一的通用引擎。有一部分是天生的线路:空间、语言和社交技能使用大脑的不同区域,发展也不均衡。但很大一部分是练习;人们在自己做过千百次的事情上会变得非常擅长,而在一直回避的事情上依然笨拙。兴趣决定了练习实际投向哪里,而由于注意力是有限的,在一个领域深耕往往是以忽视另一个领域为代价换来的。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“Honestly, Đức can spot the flaw in a complicated system within seconds and cannot reliably remember where he parked his motorbike, and I don't think that's really a contradiction” — The hedge 'Honestly' gives this opening a more personal, spoken quality than 6.5's flatter version. 7.5 drops the hedge but intensifies the ending with 'at all', achieving a similarly emphatic effect through a different device.缓冲语"Honestly"让这个开头比6.5分中更平淡的版本更具个人色彩、更口语化。7.5分答案去掉了缓冲语,但在结尾用"at all"来强化,通过不同的手法达到了类似的强调效果。
    • LR“people get very good at what they've done a thousand times” — 'A thousand times' is a strong, natural intensifier. 7.5 pushes this further to 'ten thousand times', an even more emphatic and idiomatic exaggeration for the same idea of extensive practice."A thousand times"是一个强有力、自然的强化表达。7.5分答案把它进一步推向"ten thousand times",这是一个更强调、更夸张的表达,用来强化大量练习这一同样的想法。
    • GRA“Much of it, though, is practice; people get very good at what they've done a thousand times and stay clumsy at whatever they've avoided.” — This sentence uses a semicolon to join two closely related clauses, a more advanced structure than 6.5's looser coordination. 7.5 keeps an almost identical semicolon structure but adds the adverb 'quietly' before 'avoided', a small but deliberate refinement within the same frame.这个句子用分号连接两个关系紧密的从句,这是一种比6.5分中更松散的并列更高级的结构。7.5分答案保留了几乎相同的分号结构,但在"avoided"前加上了副词"quietly",这是在同一框架内一个小而刻意的打磨。
    7.5 分

    Closes with a deliberately paradoxical, aphoristic line summarising the whole answer, which neither lower band attempts.以一句刻意带有悖论意味、格言式的话收尾,总结了整篇答案,这是较低两个分段都没有尝试的手法。

    Đức can spot the flaw in a complicated system within seconds and cannot reliably remember where he parked his motorbike, and I don't think that's a contradiction at all — brains seem to be a collection of separate abilities rather than one general engine. Some of it is simply wiring: spatial, verbal, musical and social skills draw on different parts of the mind and develop unevenly. Much of it, though, is practice; people get remarkably good at what they've done ten thousand times and stay clumsy at whatever they've quietly avoided. Interest decides where the practice goes, and since attention is finite, depth in one area is usually bought with neglect of another. A person good at everything is usually good at nothing in particular.

    查看中文翻译

    阿德能在几秒钟内发现一个复杂系统里的漏洞,却记不住自己的摩托车停在哪里,我完全不认为这算是矛盾——大脑看起来更像是一系列独立能力的集合,而不是一台单一的通用引擎。有一部分纯粹是天生的线路:空间、语言、音乐和社交技能调用的是大脑不同的区域,发展也不均衡。但很大一部分是练习;人们在自己做过一万次的事情上会变得异常擅长,而在自己一直悄悄回避的事情上依然笨拙。兴趣决定了练习投向哪里,而由于注意力是有限的,在一个领域深耕通常是以忽视另一个领域为代价换来的。一个样样都好的人,通常在任何一样上都算不上特别出色。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“A person good at everything is usually good at nothing in particular.” — This closing uses a deliberately paradoxical, aphoristic structure to sum up the whole answer in one memorable line. Neither 6.5 nor 7.0 reaches for this kind of compact, paradoxical closing statement; both end on the more literal point about neglect.这个结尾用一个刻意带有悖论意味、格言式的结构,把整篇答案浓缩进一句令人难忘的话里。6.5分和7.0分都没有尝试这种紧凑、带有悖论色彩的收尾陈述;两者都止步于关于忽视的更直白的论点。
    • LR“draw on different parts of the mind” — 'Draw on' is a precise, natural verb for how different skills use different mental resources, a small but noticeable step up from the plainer 'use' at 6.5 and 7.0. It shows the kind of careful, exact word choice expected at 7.5."Draw on"是一个精确、自然的动词,用来描述不同技能如何调用不同的心智资源,比6.5分和7.0分中更平实的"use"有着明显的进步。它展现出7.5分所期望的那种细致、精确的用词。
    • GRA“Interest decides where the practice goes, and since attention is finite, depth in one area is usually bought with neglect of another.” — This sentence uses 'since' to subordinate the reason clause tightly within the sentence, more compact than 6.5's looser 'and... so' chain. That tighter subordination, combined with the precise phrase 'bought with neglect of', is characteristic of the grammatical and lexical range expected at 7.5.这个句子用"since"把原因从句紧密地从属化在句子内部,比6.5分中更松散的"and... so"链条更紧凑。这种更紧密的从属结构,加上精确的短语"bought with neglect of",正是7.5分所期望的语法和词汇范围的特征。

  5. 5. Why does society need people with different types of intelligence?

    2026年5–8月
    查看这道题的6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5三档对比
    6.5 分

    Uses a plain 'since... and' chain to link two examples, unlike the higher bands' tighter colon structure.用一个平实的"since... and"链条来连接两个例子,不同于更高分段更紧凑的冒号结构。

    Because problems don't all look the same. Our studio put four brilliant designers on a project, and it stalled for months; it was rescued when a plain-spoken project manager joined who wasn't a designer but could read people and keep a schedule. Society needs engineers and nurses, people who see patterns and people who see faces. A team of similar minds has similar blind spots. Different intelligences also check each other, since the careful person catches the dreamer's mistakes and the dreamer sees what the careful person can't imagine. Valuing only one kind wastes talent.

    查看中文翻译

    因为问题并不都长得一样。我们工作室曾经派了四位出色的设计师去做一个项目,结果项目卡了好几个月;直到一位说话直白的项目经理加入才把它救了回来,他不是设计师,但擅长读懂人心、把控进度。社会需要工程师,也需要护士,需要看见规律的人,也需要看见面孔的人。一个由相似头脑组成的团队,会有相似的盲点。不同的智能类型也能相互制衡,因为谨慎的人能发现梦想家的错误,而梦想家能看到谨慎的人无法想象的东西。只重视一种智能类型会浪费人才。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“Because problems don't all look the same.” — This short, direct opening states the reason plainly, in keeping with 6.5's simple style. Both higher bands intensify this to 'don't come in one shape', a more precise and idiomatic image for the identical claim.这个简短、直接的开头平实地陈述了原因,符合6.5分的简单风格。两个更高分段都把它强化为"don't come in one shape",这是一个更精确、更地道的意象,用来表达同一个论点。
    • LR“A team of similar minds has similar blind spots.” — 'Similar' is a plain, general adjective repeated twice here. Both higher bands replace it with 'identical', a more precise and emphatic word that sharpens the same observation."Similar"是一个平实、笼统的形容词,在这里被重复使用了两次。两个更高分段都用"identical"取代了它,这是一个更精确、更有力的词,让同样的观察更加尖锐。
    • GRA“Different intelligences also check each other, since the careful person catches the dreamer's mistakes and the dreamer sees what the careful person can't imagine.” — This sentence uses 'since' plus two coordinated clauses, correct and reasonably fluent. Both higher bands restructure the same content with a colon introducing two parallel clauses instead, a tighter and more rhythmic way of presenting the same contrast.这个句子用"since"加上两个并列从句,正确且相当流畅。两个更高分段都把同样的内容重新组织成一个由冒号引出的两个平行从句,这是一种更紧凑、更有节奏感的方式来呈现同一个对比。
    7.0 分

    Restructures the checking-each-other idea with a colon introducing two parallel clauses, tighter than 6.5's 'since... and' chain.用一个由冒号引出的两个平行从句来重新组织"相互制衡"这个想法,比6.5分中的"since... and"链条更紧凑。

    Honestly, because problems simply don't come in one shape. Our studio once staffed a project with four brilliant designers and it stalled for months; it was rescued only when a plain-spoken project manager joined who was no designer but could read people and keep a schedule — the missing intelligence was social and practical, not creative. A society needs engineers and nurses, people who see patterns and people who see faces. A team of identical minds has identical blind spots. Different intelligences also check each other: the analyst catches the dreamer's errors, the dreamer sees what the analyst can't imagine. Valuing only one kind, usually the academic kind, wastes much talent.

    查看中文翻译

    老实说,因为问题根本就不是只有一种样子。我们工作室曾经为一个项目配备了四位出色的设计师,结果它卡了好几个月;直到一位说话直白的项目经理加入才把它救了回来,他不是设计师,但擅长读懂人心、把控进度——原来缺失的智能类型是社交和实务上的,而不是创造性的。一个社会需要工程师和护士,需要看见规律的人和看见面孔的人。一个由完全相同的头脑组成的团队,会有完全相同的盲点。不同的智能类型也能相互制衡:分析型的人能发现梦想家的错误,梦想家能看到分析型的人无法想象的东西。只重视一种类型,通常是学术型的那一种,会浪费大量人才。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“Honestly, because problems simply don't come in one shape.” — The hedge 'Honestly' plus the intensifier 'simply' gives this opening more conviction than 6.5's plainer statement. 7.5 achieves a nearly identical effect but moves a similar hedge to the end of the sentence, a subtly more natural placement.缓冲语"Honestly"加上强化词"simply"让这个开头比6.5分中更平实的陈述更具说服力。7.5分答案达到了几乎相同的效果,但把一个类似的缓冲语移到了句末,这是一种略微更自然的位置安排。
    • LR“the missing intelligence was social and practical, not creative” — This is a precise, functional contrast. 7.5 varies this slightly to 'turned out to be social and practical, not creative', adding a note of discovery that gives the same claim a touch more narrative colour.这是一个精确、功能性的对比。7.5分答案把它略微变换为"turned out to be social and practical, not creative",加入了一丝发现的意味,让同样的论点多了一点叙事色彩。
    • GRA“Different intelligences also check each other: the analyst catches the dreamer's errors, the dreamer sees what the analyst can't imagine.” — This sentence uses a colon to introduce two parallel clauses with matching grammatical shape, a tight and rhythmic structure. 7.5 keeps this identical structure but adds 'simply' to the final clause, a small intensifier within an otherwise shared frame.这个句子用冒号引出两个语法结构相配的平行从句,是一种紧凑、有节奏感的结构。7.5分答案保留了完全相同的结构,但在最后一个从句里加上了"simply",这是在共享框架内的一个小小的强化词。
    7.5 分

    Extends the closing claim with 'in any given population', giving it a broader, more universal scope than the narrower endings below.用"in any given population"扩展了结尾的论点,让它比下面更狭窄的结尾拥有更广阔、更普遍的视野。

    Because problems simply don't come in one shape, if I'm honest. Our studio once staffed a project with four genuinely brilliant designers and it stalled for months; it was rescued only when a plain-spoken project manager joined who was no designer at all but could read people and keep a schedule — the missing intelligence turned out to be social and practical, not creative. A society needs engineers and nurses, judges and comedians, people who spot patterns and people who read faces. A team of identical minds inevitably has identical blind spots. Different intelligences also check each other: the analyst catches the dreamer's errors, the dreamer sees what the analyst simply can't imagine. Valuing only one kind, usually the academic kind, wastes most of the talent in any given population.

    查看中文翻译

    说实话,因为问题根本就不是只有一种样子。我们工作室曾经为一个项目配备了四位真正出色的设计师,结果它卡了好几个月;直到一位说话直白的项目经理加入才把它救了回来,他压根不是设计师,但擅长读懂人心、把控进度——原来缺失的智能类型是社交和实务上的,而不是创造性的。一个社会需要工程师和护士,需要法官和喜剧演员,需要能发现规律的人和能读懂面孔的人。一个由完全相同的头脑组成的团队,必然会有完全相同的盲点。不同的智能类型也能相互制衡:分析型的人能发现梦想家的错误,梦想家能看到分析型的人根本无法想象的东西。只重视一种类型,通常是学术型的那一种,会浪费任何一个群体中大部分的人才。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“Valuing only one kind, usually the academic kind, wastes most of the talent in any given population.” — This closing extends the claim with the phrase 'in any given population', giving the conclusion a broader, more universal scope than the narrower versions at 6.5 and 7.0. It reads as a more sweeping, confidently argued final judgement.这个结尾用短语"in any given population"扩展了论点,让结论比6.5分和7.0分中更狭窄的版本拥有更广阔、更普遍的视野。它读起来像是一个更宏大、更自信的最终论断。
    • LR“people who spot patterns and people who read faces” — 'Spot' and 'read' are more precise, active verbs than the plainer 'see... see' repeated at 6.5 and 7.0 for the same pairing. It shows the kind of varied, exact vocabulary expected at 7.5."Spot"和"read"是比6.5分和7.0分中重复使用的更平实的"see... see"更精确、更主动的动词,用于同样的搭配。它展现出7.5分所期望的那种富于变化、精确的词汇。
    • GRA“A team of identical minds inevitably has identical blind spots.” — The added adverb 'inevitably' turns this from a simple observation into a claim about necessity, a small but deliberate grammatical intensification beyond the plainer versions at 6.5 and 7.0. This kind of precise adverbial modification for rhetorical effect is characteristic of 7.5 writing.加上的副词"inevitably"把这句话从一个简单的观察变成了一个关于必然性的论断,这是一个比6.5分和7.0分中更平实的版本更小却更刻意的语法强化。这种为了修辞效果而进行的精确副词修饰,正是7.5分写作的特征。

  6. 6. Do you think people can become very good at anything if they try hard enough?

    2026年5–8月
    查看这道题的6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5三档对比
    6.5 分

    Opens with a compact semicolon pair that both higher bands keep almost unchanged, showing this structure already works well at 6.5.以一对紧凑的分号句开头,两个更高分段都几乎原样保留了这个开头,说明这个结构在6.5分时就已经运作良好。

    Good, yes; very good, not at everything. I practised guitar for three years and became competent, but my sister picked one up for three months and played music — effort took me a long way and no further, while something in her went further. Trying hard is necessary, though most stop before finding it. But limits do exist, and they're different for every person and every skill — not everyone can become a top athlete or mathematician no matter what they do. So effort makes anyone decent at anything, but mastery needs something you can't choose.

    查看中文翻译

    能变好,是的;能变得非常出色,不是在所有事情上都能。我练了三年吉他,变得还算熟练,但我妹妹拿起吉他才三个月,就能演奏出真正的音乐了——努力把我带得很远,却也就到此为止,而她身上的某种东西却走得更远。努力尝试是必要的,不过大多数人在找到那个东西之前就放弃了。但极限确实存在,而且对每个人、每项技能来说都不一样——不是每个人无论怎么努力都能成为顶尖运动员或数学家。所以努力能让任何人在任何事情上都做得不错,但要达到精通,需要一些你无法选择的东西。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“Good, yes; very good, not at everything.” — This opening uses a semicolon to give a compact, two-part answer right away, a strong and economical structure already at 6.5. Both higher bands keep this exact opening, showing that a good structural choice can recur across bands while the surrounding argument grows more developed.这个开头用分号立即给出了一个紧凑的两部分回答,即使在6.5分也是一个强有力、精炼的结构。两个更高分段都保留了这个完全相同的开头,说明一个好的结构选择可以在各分段中重复出现,而周围的论证则变得更成熟。
    • LR“effort took me a long way and no further” — This is a clear, functional way of describing a limit. Both higher bands replace 'a long way' with 'a fair distance', a slightly more measured and natural phrase, and 7.5 adds 'and stalled there', a more vivid image for the same idea.这是一种清晰、功能性的描述极限的方式。两个更高分段都用"a fair distance"取代了"a long way",这是一个略微更斟酌、更自然的短语,而7.5分答案还加上了"and stalled there",为同一个想法呈现出更生动的意象。
    • GRA“But limits do exist, and they're different for every person and every skill — not everyone can become a top athlete or mathematician no matter what they do.” — This sentence uses a dash to add an example after the main claim, correct and reasonably developed. Both higher bands replace 'limits' with 'ceilings', a more precise metaphor, and restructure the ending with a colon instead of a dash.这个句子用破折号在主要论点后加入了一个例子,正确且相当成熟。两个更高分段都用"ceilings"取代了"limits",这是一个更精确的比喻,并用冒号重新组织了结尾,而不是用破折号。
    7.0 分

    Adds 'Honestly' to the already compact semicolon opening, a slightly more spoken framing than 6.5's version.在原本已经紧凑的分号开头上加了"Honestly",让开头比6.5分的版本略微更口语化。

    Honestly, good, yes; very good, not at everything. I practised guitar for three years and became competent, while my sister picked one up for three months and somehow played actual music — effort took me a fair distance and no further, whereas something in her went further, faster. Trying hard is necessary, and most people give up long before they've found their ceiling, so they never learn where it was. But ceilings do exist, and they differ by person and by skill: not everyone can become a top-level athlete or mathematician whatever they do. So effort makes almost anyone respectable at almost anything, and mastery needs effort plus something you can't choose.

    查看中文翻译

    老实说,能变好,是的;能变得非常出色,不是在所有事情上都能。我练了三年吉他,变得还算熟练,而我妹妹拿起吉他才三个月,就不知怎么地演奏出了真正的音乐——努力把我带得比较远,却也就到此为止,而她身上的某种东西却走得更远、更快。努力尝试是必要的,而大多数人在找到自己的极限之前很久就放弃了,所以他们从来都不知道那个极限在哪里。但极限确实存在,而且因人、因技能而异:不是每个人无论怎么努力都能成为顶尖运动员或数学家。所以努力几乎能让任何人在几乎任何事情上都做得体面,而精通则需要努力加上一些你无法选择的东西。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“Honestly, good, yes; very good, not at everything.” — Adding 'Honestly' before the already compact semicolon opening gives it a slightly more spoken, personal framing than 6.5's version. 7.5 drops the hedge and instead adds 'if I'm honest' at the very end of the sentence, a subtly more natural placement of the same idea.在原本已经紧凑的分号开头前加上"Honestly",让它比6.5分的版本略微更口语化、更具个人色彩。7.5分答案去掉了缓冲语,而是在句子末尾加上"if I'm honest",这是对同一想法略微更自然的位置安排。
    • LR“my sister picked one up for three months and somehow played actual music” — 'Somehow' adds a note of genuine surprise to this observation. 7.5 keeps this exact word but adds 'almost effortlessly' later in the sentence, extending the same sense of effortless talent with an additional descriptive phrase."Somehow"为这个观察增添了一丝真正的惊讶感。7.5分答案保留了这个词,但在句子后面又加上了"almost effortlessly",进一步扩展了这种毫不费力的天赋感,加入了额外的描述性短语。
    • GRA“But ceilings do exist, and they differ by person and by skill: not everyone can become a top-level athlete or mathematician whatever they do.” — This sentence uses a colon to introduce the supporting example after the main claim, a fluent and controlled structure. 7.5 keeps an almost identical structure but adds a comma before 'whatever they do', a small punctuation refinement within the same shared frame.这个句子用冒号在主要论点后引出支持性的例子,是一种流畅、受控的结构。7.5分答案保留了几乎相同的结构,但在"whatever they do"前加了一个逗号,这是共享框架内一个小小的标点打磨。
    7.5 分

    Closes by framing the conclusion as 'the honest version', giving the final synthesis a more reflective, considered quality.以把结论框定为"the honest version"来收尾,让最终的综合陈述呈现出更具反思性、更经过斟酌的质感。

    Good, yes; very good, not at everything, if I'm honest. I practised guitar seriously for three years and became competent, no more; my sister picked one up for three months and somehow produced actual music — effort took me a fair distance and stalled there, whereas something in her went further, faster, almost effortlessly. Trying hard is the necessary part, and most people give up long before they've even found their ceiling, so they never quite learn where it was. But ceilings genuinely exist, and they differ by person and by skill: not everyone can become a top-level athlete or mathematician, whatever they do. The honest version, I'd say, is that effort makes almost anyone respectable at almost anything, while mastery needs effort plus something you can't simply choose to have.

    查看中文翻译

    说实话,能变好,是的;能变得非常出色,不是在所有事情上都能。我认真练了三年吉他,变得还算熟练,仅此而已;我妹妹拿起吉他才三个月,就不知怎么地演奏出了真正的音乐——努力把我带得比较远,然后就停滞在那里,而她身上的某种东西却走得更远、更快,几乎毫不费力。努力尝试是必要的那一部分,而大多数人甚至在找到自己的极限之前很久就放弃了,所以他们从来都没能真正弄清楚那个极限在哪里。但极限确实真真切切地存在,而且因人、因技能而异:不是每个人无论怎么努力都能成为顶尖运动员或数学家。我想说,坦白的说法是,努力几乎能让任何人在几乎任何事情上都做得体面,而精通则需要努力加上一些你无法仅凭选择就能拥有的东西。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“The honest version, I'd say, is that effort makes almost anyone respectable at almost anything, while mastery needs effort plus something you can't simply choose to have.” — This closing frames the whole answer's conclusion as 'the honest version', giving it a more reflective, considered quality than the plainer closings at 6.5 and 7.0. It reads as a deliberately weighed final synthesis of the whole argument.这个结尾把整篇答案的结论框定为"the honest version",让它比6.5分和7.0分中更平实的结尾拥有更具反思性、更经过斟酌的质感。它读起来像是对整个论证的一次刻意权衡后的最终综合。
    • LR“further, faster, almost effortlessly” — This three-part list, ending in the vivid adverb 'effortlessly', is more developed and evocative than the two-part 'further, faster' used at 6.5 and 7.0 for the same comparison. It shows the kind of layered, precise vocabulary expected at 7.5.这个以生动的副词"effortlessly"收尾的三部分列表,比6.5分和7.0分中用于同一比较的两部分"further, faster"更成熟、更具画面感。它展现出7.5分所期望的那种层次分明、精确的词汇。
    • GRA“effort took me a fair distance and stalled there, whereas something in her went further, faster, almost effortlessly” — This sentence uses the verb 'stalled' to give the first clause a vivid, self-contained image before the 'whereas' contrast, more developed than the plainer 'and no further' used at 6.5. This kind of precise, image-driven main clause within a larger contrastive sentence is characteristic of 7.5 grammar.这个句子用动词"stalled"在"whereas"对比之前,为第一个从句赋予了一个生动、自成一体的意象,比6.5分中更平实的"and no further"更成熟。这种在更大的对比句中使用精确、意象驱动的主句的手法,正是7.5分语法的特征。

  7. 7. Why are so many processes now controlled by computers rather than people?

    2026年5–8月
    查看这道题的6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5三档对比
    6.5 分

    Gives the reason as a full sentence rather than the compressed single-word structure the higher bands prefer.把原因表述为一个完整的句子,而不是更高分段所偏好的压缩式单词结构。

    Because computers are cheaper, faster, and more consistent at anything that can be reduced to rules. Our studio's invoicing used to take one person two days a month and produced occasional mistakes; the software does it in a minute, error-free. Once you've seen that, it's hard to justify going back. Machines don't tire or need holidays, and they scale — one system handles a thousand transactions as easily as one. There's also a record kept automatically, while a person only leaves a memory. The cost is that processes become rigid and nobody can explain a decision.

    查看中文翻译

    因为电脑在任何能被简化为规则的事情上都更便宜、更快、更稳定。我们工作室的开票工作以前需要一个人花两天时间才能完成,而且偶尔还会出错;软件一分钟就能做完,而且零失误。一旦见识过这一点,就很难再有理由回到从前了。机器不会疲惫,也不需要假期,而且它们能扩展规模——一个系统处理一千笔交易和处理一笔一样轻松。而且会自动保留一份记录,而一个人只会留下一段记忆。代价是流程变得僵化,没有人能解释一个决定是怎么做出的。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“Because computers are cheaper, faster, and more consistent at anything that can be reduced to rules.” — This opening gives the reason directly as a full sentence, suiting 6.5's style. Both higher bands compress 'that can be reduced to rules' into the single word 'reducible', a more economical and precise way of expressing the same idea.这个开头直接用一个完整的句子给出了原因,符合6.5分的风格。两个更高分段都把"that can be reduced to rules"压缩成了一个单词"reducible",这是一种更精炼、更精确的表达同一想法的方式。
    • LR“Once you've seen that, it's hard to justify going back.” — This is a plain, functional closing observation. 7.5 intensifies the equivalent phrase to 'hard to justify with a straight face', a vivid, idiomatic way of expressing the same difficulty.这是一个平实、功能性的结尾观察。7.5分答案把对应的短语强化为"hard to justify with a straight face",这是一种生动、地道的方式来表达同样的困难。
    • GRA“There's also a record kept automatically, while a person only leaves a memory.” — This sentence uses 'while' to contrast two ideas, correct and clear. Both higher bands restructure this into a colon-introduced pair, a tighter, more rhythmic parallel structure.这个句子用"while"来对比两个想法,正确且清晰。两个更高分段都把它重新组织成一个由冒号引出的一对,这是一种更紧凑、更有节奏感的平行结构。
    7.0 分

    Compresses 'that can be reduced to rules' into the single word 'reducible', a tighter version of the same opening reason.把"that can be reduced to rules"压缩成了一个单词"reducible",让开头的原因比之前更紧凑。

    Honestly, because computers are cheaper, faster and more consistent at anything reducible to rules. Our studio's invoicing used to take one person two days a month and produced occasional errors; the software now does it in a minute and has never been wrong, and once you've seen that, going back is genuinely hard to justify. Machines don't tire or need holidays, and they scale effortlessly — one system handles a thousand transactions as easily as one. There's also traceability: a computer leaves a record, a person leaves a memory. The cost is that processes become rigid and nobody can quite explain a decision, as anyone who's argued with an automated system knows.

    查看中文翻译

    老实说,是因为电脑在任何可以简化为规则的事情上都更便宜、更快、更稳定。我们工作室的开票工作以前需要一个人花两天时间才能完成,而且偶尔还会出错;现在软件一分钟就能做完,而且从未出过错,一旦见识过这一点,再想为回到从前找理由确实很难。机器不会疲惫,也不需要假期,而且它们能轻松扩展规模——一个系统处理一千笔交易和处理一笔一样轻松。此外还有可追溯性:电脑会留下一份记录,而人只会留下一段记忆。代价是流程变得僵化,没有人能完全解释一个决定,任何和自动化系统争论过的人都懂这一点。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“Honestly, because computers are cheaper, faster and more consistent at anything reducible to rules.” — The hedge 'Honestly' gives this opening a more personal, spoken quality than 6.5's flatter version. 7.5 achieves a similar effect by adding 'essentially' at the end of the sentence instead, a subtly different but equally natural placement.缓冲语"Honestly"让这个开头比6.5分中更平淡的版本更具个人色彩、更口语化。7.5分答案通过在句末加上"essentially"达到了类似的效果,这是一种略有不同但同样自然的位置安排。
    • LR“going back is genuinely hard to justify” — 'Genuinely' is a precise, natural intensifier here. 7.5 replaces the whole phrase with the more vivid idiom 'hard to justify with a straight face', a noticeably more figurative way of expressing the same idea."Genuinely"在这里是一个精确、自然的强化词。7.5分答案把整个短语替换成了更生动的习语"hard to justify with a straight face",这是一种明显更具比喻性的表达同一个想法的方式。
    • GRA“The cost is that processes become rigid and nobody can quite explain a decision, as anyone who's argued with an automated system knows.” — This sentence adds a final relative clause to support the claim with shared experience, a fairly advanced structure. 7.5 keeps an almost identical structure but adds 'ever' and 'all too well', small intensifiers that sharpen the same closing observation.这个句子加上了一个最终的定语从句,用共同的经历来支持论点,这是一个相当高级的结构。7.5分答案保留了几乎相同的结构,但加上了"ever"和"all too well",这些小小的强化词让同样的结尾观察更加尖锐。
    7.5 分

    Adds a final summarising sentence, 'the case is overwhelming', which neither lower band includes.加上了一句最终的总结性句子,"the case is overwhelming",这是较低两个分段都没有包含的内容。

    Because computers are cheaper, faster and more consistent at anything reducible to rules, essentially. Our studio's invoicing used to take one person two days a month and still produced a small error every quarter; the software now does it in a minute and has never once been wrong, and once you've witnessed that, going back is hard to justify with a straight face. Machines don't tire, forget or need holidays, and they scale effortlessly — one system handles a thousand transactions as easily as one. There's also traceability: a computer leaves a record, a person merely leaves a memory. The cost is that processes become rigid and nobody can quite explain a decision, as anyone who's ever argued with an automated system knows all too well. But for repetitive work, the case is overwhelming.

    查看中文翻译

    说到底,是因为电脑在任何可以简化为规则的事情上都更便宜、更快、更稳定。我们工作室的开票工作以前需要一个人花两天时间才能完成,而且每个季度仍然会出一次小错;现在软件一分钟就能做完,而且从未出过一次错,一旦亲眼见识过这一点,再想面不改色地为回到从前找理由,确实很难。机器不会疲惫、不会遗忘,也不需要假期,而且它们能轻松扩展规模——一个系统处理一千笔交易和处理一笔一样轻松。此外还有可追溯性:电脑会留下一份记录,而人只是留下一段记忆。代价是流程变得僵化,没有人能完全解释一个决定,任何曾经和自动化系统争论过的人都对此再清楚不过了。但对于重复性的工作来说,支持自动化的理由压倒性地充分。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“But for repetitive work, the case is overwhelming.” — This final sentence steps back from the specific examples to state a general conclusion about repetitive work, giving the whole answer a clear sense of arriving somewhere. Neither 6.5 nor 7.0 includes this kind of summarising final judgement; both end on the point about rigidity.这最后一句从具体的例子中抽离出来,陈述了一个关于重复性工作的总体结论,让整篇答案清楚地给人一种抵达终点的感觉。6.5分和7.0分都没有包含这种总结性的最终论断;两者都止步于关于僵化的那个论点。
    • LR“hard to justify with a straight face” — This is a vivid, idiomatic expression for something being difficult to defend without appearing insincere, well beyond the plain 'hard to justify' used at 6.5 and 7.0. It shows the kind of natural, figurative vocabulary that marks 7.5.这是一个生动、地道的表达方式,用来形容某件事难以在不显得虚伪的情况下为其辩护,远远超越了6.5分和7.0分中使用的平实的"hard to justify"。它展现出标志着7.5分的那种自然、具比喻性的词汇。
    • GRA“The cost is that processes become rigid and nobody can quite explain a decision, as anyone who's ever argued with an automated system knows all too well.” — This sentence extends the relative clause used at 7.0 with the added intensifiers 'ever' and 'all too well', packing more emphasis into an already complex shared structure. This kind of incremental layering within a familiar frame is characteristic of the top band's control.这个句子把7.0分中使用的定语从句进一步扩展,加上了强化词"ever"和"all too well",在一个本已复杂的共享结构中塞进了更多的强调。这种在熟悉的框架内层层递进的手法,正是最高分段掌控力的特征。

  8. 8. Which do you think is of greater value to society: machine intelligence or human intelligence?

    2026年5–8月
    查看这道题的6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5三档对比
    6.5 分

    Uses the plain phrase 'changing fast' rather than the more vivid physical metaphor the higher bands reach for.使用了平实的短语"changing fast",而不是更高分段所选用的更生动的物理比喻。

    Human, though the answer is changing fast. Đức's fix to the version problem is my reason — no system would rename files after the client's memory, because that needed noticing the problem, and noticing is human. Machines are now better at anything with clear rules and enough data, like reading scans or translating languages, and it grows. But deciding what's worth doing, what a problem really means, and what's fair are human judgements, and a society that hands those over has stopped being a society. Machines make us more capable; humans decide what capable is for.

    查看中文翻译

    人类,不过这个答案正在快速改变。阿德解决版本问题的方式就是我的理由——没有哪个系统会按照客户的记忆来重新命名文件,因为那需要先注意到这个问题,而注意到问题正是人类的能力。机器现在在任何有明确规则、数据又足够的事情上都做得更好,比如读取扫描图像或翻译语言,而且这种能力还在增长。但决定什么值得去做、一个问题真正意味着什么,以及什么是公平的,这些都是人类的判断,一个把这些都交出去的社会,也就不再是一个社会了。机器让我们更有能力;人类决定这种能力是为了什么。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“Human, though the answer is changing fast.” — This short opening gives the position and a qualifier in one plain sentence, fitting 6.5's style. Both higher bands intensify this to 'shifting under us', a more vivid, almost physical metaphor for the same idea of rapid change.这个简短的开头用一个平实的句子给出了立场和一个限定语,符合6.5分的风格。两个更高分段都把它强化为"shifting under us",这是一个更生动、近乎具有物理感的比喻,用来表达快速变化这一想法。
    • LR“Machines are now better at anything with clear rules and enough data, like reading scans or translating languages” — This is a clear, functional example list. Both higher bands replace it with the tighter, more technical noun list 'diagnosis from scans, translation, logistics', a more precise and professional register for the same content.这是一个清晰、功能性的例子列表。两个更高分段都用更紧凑、更专业的名词列表"diagnosis from scans, translation, logistics"取代了它,为同一内容呈现出更精确、更专业的语域。
    • GRA“But deciding what's worth doing, what a problem really means, and what's fair are human judgements, and a society that hands those over has stopped being a society.” — This sentence lists three parallel noun clauses before the main claim, correct and reasonably developed. 7.5 extends a very similar sentence with the added phrase 'in effect' and 'at all', showing marginally more careful qualification within the same basic structure.这个句子在主要论点之前列出了三个平行的名词从句,正确且相当成熟。7.5分答案把一个非常相似的句子扩展加入了"in effect"和"at all",在同一个基本结构中展现出略微更细致的限定。
    7.0 分

    Upgrades 'changing fast' to the more vivid 'shifting under us', giving the opening claim more physical, dynamic imagery.把"changing fast"升级为更生动的"shifting under us",让开头的论点拥有了更具物理感、更有动态感的意象。

    Honestly, human, though the answer is shifting under us. Đức's solution to the version problem is my reason — no system managing files would rename files after the client's memory, because that needed noticing the problem, and noticing is still very much a human thing. Machines are now better at anything with clear rules and enough data — diagnosis from scans, translation, logistics — and their value to society in those areas is immense and growing. But deciding what's worth doing, what a problem means, and what's fair are human judgements, and a society that hands them over stops being one. Machines make us more capable; humans decide what capable is for.

    查看中文翻译

    老实说,人类,不过这个答案正在我们脚下发生位移。阿德对版本问题的解决方案就是我的理由——没有哪个管理文件的系统会按照客户的记忆来重新命名文件,因为那需要先注意到这个问题,而注意到问题至今仍然很大程度上是人类的事。机器现在在任何有明确规则、数据又足够的事情上都做得更好——从扫描图像做诊断、翻译、物流——它们对社会的价值在这些领域是巨大的,而且还在增长。但决定什么值得去做、一个问题意味着什么,以及什么是公平的,这些都是人类的判断,一个把这些都交出去的社会就不再是一个社会了。机器让我们更有能力;人类决定这种能力是为了什么。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“Honestly, human, though the answer is shifting under us.” — The hedge 'Honestly' gives this opening a more personal, spoken quality than 6.5's flatter version. 7.5 drops the hedge but adds 'visibly' before 'shifting', achieving a similarly emphatic effect through a more precise adverb instead.缓冲语"Honestly"让这个开头比6.5分中更平淡的版本更具个人色彩、更口语化。7.5分答案去掉了缓冲语,但在"shifting"前加上了"visibly",通过一个更精确的副词达到了类似的强调效果。
    • LR“noticing is still very much a human thing” — 'Very much' is a natural, functional intensifier. 7.5 replaces it with the more vivid 'stubbornly', a precise adjective that personifies the resistance of this human quality to automation, showing wider figurative range."Very much"是一个自然、功能性的强化词。7.5分答案用更生动的"stubbornly"取代了它,这是一个精确的形容词,把这种人类特质对自动化的抵抗拟人化了,展现出更宽广的比喻性表达范围。
    • GRA“Machines are now better at anything with clear rules and enough data — diagnosis from scans, translation, logistics — and their value to society in those areas is immense and growing.” — This sentence uses a dash-set list embedded within the main clause, a fairly advanced structure. 7.5 keeps an almost identical structure but adds 'only' before 'growing', a small but deliberate intensifier within the same shared frame.这个句子在主句内嵌入了一个用破折号标出的列表,是一个相当高级的结构。7.5分答案保留了几乎相同的结构,但在"growing"前加上了"only",这是共享框架内一个小而刻意的强化词。
    7.5 分

    Adds the single word 'even' to the closing semicolon-pair, sharpening the final claim into something closer to a challenge.在结尾的分号对句中加上了一个单词"even",让最后的论断更接近一种挑战。

    Human, though the answer is visibly shifting under us. Đức's fix to the version problem is my reason for saying so — no system optimising our file management would ever have thought to rename files after the client's memory, because that required noticing what the problem actually was, and noticing remains a stubbornly human thing. Machines are now better at anything with clear rules and enough data — diagnosis from scans, translation, logistics — and their value to society there is immense and only growing. But deciding what's worth doing, what a problem genuinely means, and what's fair are human judgements, and a society that hands those over has, in effect, stopped being a society at all. Machines make us more capable; humans decide what capable is even for.

    查看中文翻译

    人类,不过这个答案正在我们眼前明显地发生位移。阿德对版本问题的解决方案就是我这样说的理由——没有哪个优化我们文件管理的系统会想到按照客户的记忆来重新命名文件,因为那需要先注意到问题真正是什么,而注意到问题这件事,依然顽固地属于人类。机器现在在任何有明确规则、数据又足够的事情上都做得更好——从扫描图像做诊断、翻译、物流——它们对社会的价值在这些领域是巨大的,而且还在不断增长。但决定什么值得去做、一个问题究竟意味着什么,以及什么是公平的,这些都是人类的判断,一个把这些都交出去的社会,实际上就已经完全不再是一个社会了。机器让我们更有能力;人类决定这种能力究竟是为了什么。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“Machines make us more capable; humans decide what capable is even for.” — The added word 'even' at the very end of this closing semicolon-pair sharpens the final claim into something closer to a challenge, giving the ending more rhetorical bite than the identical structure used at 6.5 and 7.0. It reads as a more pointed, confident final line.在这个结尾的分号对句末尾加上的单词"even",让最后的论断更接近一种挑战,比6.5分和7.0分中使用的完全相同的结构拥有更强的修辞冲击力。它读起来像是一句更尖锐、更自信的结尾。
    • LR“noticing remains a stubbornly human thing” — 'Stubbornly' is a vivid, personifying adjective for a quality that resists automation, well beyond the plain 'still... a human thing' used at 6.5 and 'still very much' at 7.0. It shows the kind of natural, figurative vocabulary that marks 7.5."Stubbornly"是一个生动、拟人化的形容词,用来形容一种抵抗自动化的特质,远远超越了6.5分中使用的平实的"still... a human thing"和7.0分中的"still very much"。它展现出标志着7.5分的那种自然、具比喻性的词汇。
    • GRA“and a society that hands those over has, in effect, stopped being a society at all” — This clause inserts the parenthetical 'in effect' mid-sentence and adds the intensifier 'at all' at the end, packing more qualification into an already complex shared structure than either lower band. That incremental, carefully placed layering is characteristic of the top band's grammatical control.这个从句在句子中间插入了插入语"in effect",并在结尾加上了强化词"at all",在一个本已复杂的共享结构中塞进了比任何一个较低分段都更多的限定。这种循序渐进、精确安排的层次感,正是最高分段语法掌控力的特征。

  9. 9. Do you agree or disagree that there is a limit to human intelligence?

    2026年5–8月
    查看这道题的6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5三档对比
    6.5 分

    Opens with a compact semicolon pair that both higher bands keep almost unchanged, showing the structure already works well here.以一对紧凑的分号句开头,两个更高分段都几乎原样保留了这个开头,说明这个结构在这里已经运作良好。

    For one person, yes; for humans together, I'm less sure. My grandmother does mental arithmetic faster than I can reach a calculator, and there's maths neither of us fully understands — so every mind has a limit, set by biology, memory, and time. But human intelligence has always been shared, since we write things down, build on each other, and use tools, and that has kept growing for centuries. Now machines extend it further. So a person is limited, clearly, but humanity as a whole seems limited mainly by how well it shares what it knows.

    查看中文翻译

    对一个人来说,是的;对人类整体而言,我就没那么确定了。我奶奶心算的速度比我拿计算器还快,而有些数学问题我们俩都完全不懂——所以每个头脑都有极限,由生理、记忆和时间所限定。但人类的智能一直以来都是共享的,因为我们会把东西写下来、彼此借鉴、使用工具,而这已经持续增长了几个世纪。现在机器又把它进一步延伸了。所以一个人是有限的,这一点很清楚,但人类整体似乎主要受限于它分享自己所知道的东西的能力。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“For one person, yes; for humans together, I'm less sure.” — This opening uses a semicolon to give a compact, two-part answer right away, an already strong structure at 6.5. Both higher bands keep this exact structure, showing that a good opening move can recur across bands while the surrounding argument becomes more developed.这个开头用分号立即给出了一个紧凑的两部分回答,即使在6.5分也是一个强有力的结构。两个更高分段都保留了这个完全相同的结构,说明一个好的开头手法可以在各分段中重复出现,而周围的论证则变得更成熟。
    • LR“human intelligence has always been shared” — This is plain, functional wording. Both higher bands upgrade this to 'always been collective', a more precise and academic word for the identical idea, and 7.5 adds 'at heart' for extra emphasis.这是一种平实、功能性的措辞。两个更高分段都把它升级为"always been collective",这是一个更精确、更学术的词来表达同一个想法,而7.5分答案还加上了"at heart"以进一步强调。
    • GRA“So a person is limited, clearly, but humanity as a whole seems limited mainly by how well it shares what it knows.” — This closing sentence uses 'but' to join two contrasting claims, correct and clear. 7.5 replaces 'but' with a semicolon and adds 'already' before 'knows', a marginally tighter and more precise version of the same final contrast.这个结尾句用"but"连接了两个对比的论点,正确且清晰。7.5分答案用分号取代了"but",并在"knows"前加上了"already",呈现出同一个最终对比略微更紧凑、更精确的版本。
    7.0 分

    Adds 'Honestly' and 'genuinely' to the compact opening, a more spoken, emphatic framing than 6.5's plainer version.在紧凑的开头加上了"Honestly"和"genuinely",让这个铺陈比6.5分中更平实的版本更口语化、更强调。

    Honestly, for one person, yes; for humans together, I'm genuinely less sure. My grandmother does mental arithmetic faster than I can reach a calculator, and there are areas of mathematics neither of us fully understands — every mind has a ceiling, set by biology, memory and time. But human intelligence has always been collective, in a sense: we write things down, build on each other, and use tools, and that combined intelligence has kept growing for thousands of years with no obvious wall in sight. Now machines extend it further. So a person is limited, clearly, but humanity as a whole seems limited mainly by how well it shares what it knows.

    查看中文翻译

    老实说,对一个人来说,是的;对人类整体而言,我真的就没那么确定了。我奶奶心算的速度比我拿计算器还快,而数学里有些领域我们俩都完全不懂——每个头脑都有一个上限,由生理、记忆和时间所设定。但从某种意义上说,人类的智能一直以来都是集体性的:我们会把东西写下来、彼此借鉴、使用工具,而这种综合的智能已经持续增长了几千年,看不到任何明显的天花板。现在机器又把它进一步延伸了。所以一个人是有限的,这一点很清楚,但人类整体似乎主要受限于它分享自己所知道的东西的能力。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“Honestly, for one person, yes; for humans together, I'm genuinely less sure.” — Adding 'Honestly' and 'genuinely' to the already compact semicolon opening gives it a more spoken, emphatic quality than 6.5's plainer version. 7.5 drops 'Honestly' but keeps 'genuinely' and adds 'collectively' in place of 'together', a marginally more precise, formal word choice.在原本已经紧凑的分号开头上加了"Honestly"和"genuinely",让它比6.5分中更平实的版本更口语化、更强调。7.5分答案去掉了"Honestly",但保留了"genuinely",并用"collectively"取代了"together",这是一个略微更精确、更正式的用词选择。
    • LR“that combined intelligence has kept growing for thousands of years with no obvious wall in sight” — 'No obvious wall in sight' is a vivid, natural idiom for the absence of a limit. 7.5 keeps this exact phrase, showing that at the top two bands a well-chosen idiom can recur while the surrounding argument grows more refined."No obvious wall in sight"是一个生动、自然的习语,用来表达没有极限这一概念。7.5分答案原样保留了这个短语,说明在最高两个分段,一个措辞恰当的习语可以重复出现,而周围的论证则变得更加精炼。
    • GRA“But human intelligence has always been collective, in a sense: we write things down, build on each other, and use tools, and that combined intelligence has kept growing for thousands of years with no obvious wall in sight.” — This long sentence uses a colon to introduce a three-part list before continuing into a further coordinated clause, a fairly advanced structure. 7.5 keeps a nearly identical structure but replaces 'in a sense' with 'at heart' and 'use tools' with 'lean on tools', small but deliberate refinements within the same frame.这个长句用冒号引出一个三部分的列表,然后继续接上一个并列从句,是一个相当高级的结构。7.5分答案保留了几乎相同的结构,但用"at heart"取代了"in a sense",用"lean on tools"取代了"use tools",这些是同一框架内小而刻意的打磨。
    7.5 分

    Replaces 'a person' with the more formal 'an individual' and joins the closing contrast with a semicolon instead of 'but'.用更正式的"an individual"取代了"a person",并用分号而不是"but"来连接结尾的对比。

    For one person, yes; for humans collectively, I'm genuinely less sure. My grandmother does mental arithmetic faster than I can reach for a calculator, and there are branches of mathematics that neither she nor anyone alive fully understands — every single mind clearly has a ceiling, set by biology, memory and time. But human intelligence has always been collective at heart: we write things down, build on each other's work, and lean on tools, and that combined intelligence has kept expanding for thousands of years with no obvious wall in sight. Now we're building machines that extend it further still. So an individual is plainly limited; humanity as a whole seems limited mainly by how well it shares what it already knows.

    查看中文翻译

    对一个人来说,是的;对人类整体而言,我是真的没那么确定。我奶奶心算的速度比我伸手去拿计算器还快,而数学里有些分支是她和世上任何活人都无法完全理解的——每一个个体的头脑显然都有一个上限,由生理、记忆和时间所设定。但从本质上说,人类的智能一直以来都是集体性的:我们会把东西写下来、在彼此的成果上继续构建、依靠工具,而这种综合的智能已经持续扩展了几千年,看不到任何明显的天花板。现在我们又在构建能把它进一步延伸的机器。所以个体显然是有限的;而人类整体似乎主要受限于它分享自己已经知道的东西的能力。

    为什么是这个分数

    • FC“So an individual is plainly limited; humanity as a whole seems limited mainly by how well it shares what it already knows.” — This closing replaces 'a person' with the more formal 'an individual' and joins the two halves with a semicolon instead of 'but', giving the final contrast a tighter, more polished rhythm than the looser versions at 6.5 and 7.0. It reads as a more confidently structured final judgement.这个结尾用更正式的"an individual"取代了"a person",并用分号取代了"but"来连接这两部分,让最后的对比比6.5分和7.0分中更松散的版本拥有更紧凑、更精致的节奏感。它读起来像是一个结构更自信的最终论断。
    • LR“collective at heart” — 'At heart' is a precise, idiomatic intensifier suggesting something is fundamentally or essentially true, more natural than the plainer 'in a sense' used at 7.0. It shows the kind of exact, native-like phrasing expected at 7.5."At heart"是一个精确、地道的强化词,暗示某件事从根本上或本质上是真实的,比7.0分中使用的更平实的"in a sense"更自然。它展现出7.5分所期望的那种精确、地道的措辞。
    • GRA“we write things down, build on each other's work, and lean on tools, and that combined intelligence has kept expanding for thousands of years with no obvious wall in sight” — This sentence keeps the same three-part list structure as 7.0 but replaces 'build on each other' with the fuller 'build on each other's work' and 'use tools' with 'lean on tools', adding small but precise grammatical completions throughout. This kind of consistent, fine-grained refinement across a shared structure is characteristic of the top band's control.这个句子保留了和7.0分相同的三部分列表结构,但用更完整的"build on each other's work"取代了"build on each other",用"lean on tools"取代了"use tools",全篇加入了小而精确的语法补全。这种在共享结构中体现出的一贯、细致的打磨,正是最高分段掌控力的特征。

常见问题

这道 Part 2 题应该讲多长？
讲 1 到 2 分钟。考官会在 2 分钟时打断你，因此目标约 220-300 词，覆盖题卡上的每一点，并以你的感受收尾。
这张题卡之后会问哪些 Part 3 问题？
在"A Time When Someone You Know Found a Clever Solution to a Problem"之后，考官提出过 9 个讨论题，见上方列表。问题会从你的个人经历转向同一主题的普遍观点。
这张题卡还在使用吗？
考生最近一次报告它出现在 2026年5–8月。题卡每四个月轮换一次，许多话题会在之后的季度以略有不同的措辞回归。