託福口語的回答重在如何去描述而並非回答， 考官更在意你的表達而非你的答案。以下是小編整理的關於託福口語練習素材，希望大家認真閱讀!
託福口語中經常會問到大家關於科技類的話題：
Some people believe that modern technology has made our lives simpler. Others believethat modern technology has made our lives more complicated. What is your opinion?
讓我們首先一起來閱讀羅素的這篇On science and good life.
既可以積累素材，也可以激發靈感：
There is probably no limit to what science can do in the way of increasing positive excellence. Health has already been greatly improved; in spite of the lamentations of those who idealize the past, we live longer and have fewer illnesses than any class or nation in the eighteenth century. With a little more application of the knowledge we already possess, we might be much healthier than we are. And future discoveries are likely to accelerate this process enormously.
科學在增加美好的積極因素方面所能做的事情，很可能是沒有止境的。衛生條件已經得到極大的改善;不管那些懷舊者如何哀嘆，與十八世紀任何階級和民族相比，我們畢竟延長了壽命並減少了疾病。只要把我們已有的知識稍加廣泛地應用，我們就會比現在更加健康。未來的發現很可能會極大地加快這方面的程序。
So far, it has been physical science that has had most effect upon our lives, but in the future physiology and psychology are likely to be far more potent. When we have discovered how character depends upon physiological conditions, we shall be able, if we choose, to produce far more of the type of human beings that we admire. Intelligence, artistic capacity, benevolence—all these things no doubt could be increased by science. There seems scarcely any limit to what could be done in the way of producing a good world, if only men would use science wisely.
迄今為止，對我們生活影響最大的當數自然科學，但是在將來，生理學和心理學的影響很可能遠在它之上。當我們發現了性格如何依賴於生理條件時，只要我們願意，我們就能產生出大量我們所稱羨的那種人。智力，藝術能力，仁慈---所有這些東西無疑可因科學而增加。只要人們明智地利用科學，在創造美好世界方面所能做的事情，幾乎是沒有止境的。
There is a certain attitude about the application of science to human life with which I have some sympathy, though I do not, in the last analysis, agree with it. It is the attitude of those who dread what is ‘unnatural.’ Rousseau is, of course, the great protagonist of the view in Europe. In Asia, Lao-Tze has set it forth even more persuasively, and 2400 years sooner. I think there is a mixture of truth and falsehood in the admiration of ‘nature, which it is important to disentangle. To begin with, what is ‘natural?’ Roughly speaking, anything to which the speaker was accustomed in childhood. Lao-Tze objects to roads and carriages and boats, all of which were probably unknown in the village where he was born
關於科學應用到人生這個問題，存在著一種觀點，對這種觀點，我有些同感，但是最後分析起來，我是不能同意的。 它是那些害怕‘不自然的’東西的人所持有的觀點。當然，盧梭是歐洲這一觀點的偉大創始人。在亞洲，老子對這一觀點的闡述，更是動人心絃，而且要早兩千四百年。我認為，他們對於‘自然’的讚美，不過是真理與謬誤的混合物，而理清這一問題是很重要的。首先要問，什麼東西是‘自然的?’泛泛說來，是說話者幼年時所習慣的東西。老子反對車道和舟車，這恐怕是他所出生的那個村子不知車道和舟車為何物的緣故。
Rousseau has got used to these things, and does not regard them as against nature. But he would no doubt have thundered against railways if he had lived to see them. Clothes and cooking are too ancient to be denounced by most of the apostles of nature, though they all object to new fashions in either. Birth control is thought wicked by people who tolerate celibacy, because the former is a new violation of nature and the latter an ancient one. In these ways those who preach ‘nature’ are inconsistent, and one is tempted to regard them as mere conservatives.
盧梭對這些東西習以為常，所以並不認為它們是違反自然的。但是，假如他在有生之年看見鐵路，他無疑會大加指責。服裝和烹飪由來已久，大多數提倡自然的人都不提出異議，雖然它們一致反對花樣翻新。節育被當成犯罪，而獨身則被寬容，因為前者是違反自然的新事物，而後者則古已有之。在所有這些方面，那些提倡‘自然’的人都是自相矛盾的，這隻能使人把它們看成是守舊之士。
Nevertheless, there is something to be said in their favor. Take for instance vitamins, the discovery of which has produced a revulsion in favor of ‘natural’ foods. It seems, however, that vitamins can be supplied by cod-liver oil and electric light, which are certainly not part of the ‘natural’ diet of a human being. This case illustrates that, in the absence of knowledge, unexpected harm may be done by a new departure from nature, but when the harm has come to be understood it can usually be remedied by some new artificiality. As regards our physical environment and our physical means of gratifying our desires, I do not think the doctrine of ‘nature’ justifies anything beyond a certain experimental caution in the adoption of new expedients. Clothes, for instance, are contrary to nature, and need to be supplemented by another unnatural practice, namely washing, if they are not to bring disease. But the two practices together make a man healthier than the savage who eschews both.
然而，他們並非一無是處。例如，維生素的發現使人們復而贊成‘自然的’食物。不過，維生素似乎也可由魚肝油和電光提供，此二者無疑不是人類‘自然的’食物。這個例子表明，如果缺少知識，一種違反自然的新做法也許會帶來意想不到的危害，但是當那危害被認識到時，往往可以用某種新的人造物去補救。就我們的自然環境和滿足我們慾望的物質手段而言，我認為，有關‘自然’的這套理論，除了證明在採取某種新的做法時應謹慎外，並不能證明別的什麼。例如，衣服是違反自然的`，如果不想讓衣服引起疾病，就需要增加另一種不自然的行為，即洗滌。但是，穿衣與洗滌加在一起卻可使人比與此二者無緣的野蠻人要健康。
To respect physical nature is foolish; physical nature should be studied with a view to making it serve human ends as far as possible, but it remains ethically neither good nor bad. And where physical nature and human nature interact, as in the population question, there is no need to fold our hands in passive adoration and accept war, pestilence, and famine as the only possible means of dealing with excessive fertility. The divines say: it is wicked, in this matter, to apply science to the physical side of the problem; we must (they say) apply morals to the human side, and practice abstinence. Apart from the fact that everyone, including the divines, knows that their advice will not be taken, why should it be wicked to solve the population question by adopting physical means for preventing conception?
尊重物質的自然是愚蠢的; 物質的自然應當加以研究，以便使其儘可能地服務於人類的目的，但它在道德上是無所謂好壞的。在物質的自然和人類的天性相互影響的地方，如人口問題，我們無須束手被動地敬畏並接受戰爭，瘟疫和饑荒為解決過度繁殖的問題的唯一可能的方法。神學家們說，在此事上，應用科學於這一問題的物質方面是罪惡的;我們應當(他們說)應用道德於人的方面，並且實行禁慾。每個人，這些神學家也不例外，都知道他們的勸告無人理睬，撇開這個事實不談，通過避孕的物質手段來解決人口問題究竟何罪之有?
No answer is forthcoming except one based upon antiquated dogmas. And clearly the violence to nature advocated by the divines is at least as great as that involved in birth control. The divines prefer a violence to human nature which, when successfully pracised, involves unhappiness, envy, a tendency to persecution, often madness. I prefer a ‘violence’ to physical nature which is of the same sort as that involved in the steam engine or even in the use of an umbrella. This instance should show ambiguous and uncertain is the application of the principle that we should follow ‘nature.’
除了這是以古代教義為根據的，尚無別的答案。而且顯而易見，這對於神學家所提倡的自然的違反，至少不在節育之下。神學家們寧可選擇違反人類天性的做法，而這種做法的成功產生的卻是不幸，嫉妒，迫害的傾向和經常性的瘋狂。我更喜歡‘違反’物質自然的做法。這是一種類似使用蒸汽機或雨傘的做法。這個例子表明，我們應遵循‘自然’這一原則，它的應用是何等的含混和不確定。
Nature, even human nature, will cease more and more to be an absolute datum; more and more it will become what scientific manipulation has made it. Science can, if it chooses, enable our grandchildren to live the good life, by giving them knowledge, self-control, and characters productive of harmony rather than strife.
(What I Believe, 1925)
自然，甚至人性，將越來越不再是一種絕對的材料，而將逐漸成為科學所造成的東西。科學如果願意，它能使我們的子孫過上美好的生活，方法是給他們以知識，自制力能產生和諧而非鬥爭的品性。
