Hi everyone. Today, let's examine what is wrong with this TOEFL integrated essay that scored 3.5 out of 5.
First Paragraph: The phrase "how egyptian held heavy blocks" does not make sense. “egyptian” should be “Egyptians.” “holding” doesn’t make sense. It should have been “moved, carried, transported.” The phrase “they have weaknesses to be solved” also does not make sense. "They have weaknesses" or just "the lecture casts doubts on the theories" should be sufficient, as the rest is redundant. So the first paragraph is not great.
Body Paragraphs: Moving on to the body paragraphs, let's look at how the argument is organized. The essay begins with the lecture and then introduces the reading at the end. This structure is not logical, since the format of the TOEFL integrated essay is that the lecture is arguing against or for the reading. For this reason, introducing the reading at the end with the details on the reading does not make sense, as this makes the reader expect that the reading will refute the lecturer's claim. If you want to begin with the lecture, the only logical thing is to say “this is the opposite of what is mentioned in the reading” or “in this way, the lecture refutes the reading’s claim.”
Details of the First Argument: The external ramp theory. There is a problem with word choice. A theory being impractical doesn’t make sense. A method can be “impractical”; a theory can be “implausible.” The essay provides three reasons why the theory is implausible:
- No space for the ramp.
- Dismantling challenges.
- No remnants of a ramp.
Even though all these reasons are given, we as the reader have no idea why the external ramp is impractical since there is no detail that explains why. Frankly, we have no idea what even the theory is! The ideas are enumerated like bullet points instead of detailed explanations, which is key to scoring high. After reading this first argument, the reader cannot be sure why the external ramp theory cannot be true.
This is a logical organization of the argument.
The first theory proposed in the reading is that a long, external ramp must have been used to transport stone blocks and dismantled after the construction. The professor questions the validity of this external ramp theory for several reasons. One reason is that the stone blocks were very heavy, so the ramp would need to be massive to support their weight. However, there was not enough space around the pyramid to fit such a large ramp. Additionally, dismantling the massive ramp would pose another significant challenge (Why???). To make matters worse for this theory, there is no evidence of ramp remnants around the pyramid site.
Next Paragraph: Moving on to the next paragraph, it is difficult to understand what the reasons are due to imprecise word choice and illogical order. We don’t know what the internal theory is. You cannot use the definite article “the” without first introducing the theory. We know what the internal theory is when we read at the end of the paragraph. The internal theory is that a spiral ramp must have been used (inside of the pyramid?) where wooden cranes were used to transport heavy stone blocks. With this understanding, let’s go back to the beginning of the paragraph. The first sentence is ambiguous. Is this a “not only because…, but also because…” structure, where two reasons are mentioned, or a “not because…, but because…” structure where one reason is mentioned? Whichever it is, the whole sentence does not help us understand why the internal theory is unlikely. Especially, “this theory is not a proof” does not make any sense. Also, this sentence is not good: “Timber wood was not available to be used by Egyptians at that time as it
would have been brought from Lebanon at an expensive cost.” This sentence is not logical. Even if expensive, if it could have been imported from other places, timber should have been available to Egyptian pharaohs who were as rich as Jeff Bezos, who built a football stadium-sized yacht. To make it plausible, it should have been said that timber necessary for the internal ramp was not “readily” available in Egypt then as timber was imported from Lebanon at great cost. Again, the essay would have been logical and understandable if it began with the reading as follows:
The second theory proposed in the reading is the internal ramp theory, which is that a spiral ramp with wooden cranes must have been used inside the pyramid to transport heavy blocks. The professor refutes this theory by questioning the physical challenges entailed in the theory, such as how to incorporate a spiral ramp into the pyramid and how heavy stone blocks would be transported on the ramp (a spiral ramp with a 90-degree angle does not make sense).
Last Paragraph: Moving on to the last paragraph, again, to understand the concrete casting theory, we need to read the end of the paragraph which explains that a concrete-like material was used in the construction as there is some microscopic evidence. Again, word choice wise, a theory is implausible, and a method is impossible. The next sentence beginning with "additionally" does not make sense.
In conclusion, the student’s essay has two main problems:
- Illogical presentation: To make it logical, first explain what the theory is based on the reading and then explain how the professor refutes the theory.
- Vague and inadequate explanation: A good explanation is one that helps the reader understand the professor's reasons for the refutation. The essay did not explain in full detail, leaving the reader unable to understand the argument.
This is why the essay scored 3.5. The key to a high score in the integrated essay is to explain in detail the professor’s argument. Think of it like you are explaining to your friend who missed the lecture.