TPO 2
阅读解析与听力预测
总论：
teamwork有各种好处。
下文将会展开各种好处，而听力会直接说这些好处不存在，或者干脆说是坏处。
注：第一段看完，直接就看出这是一篇非常奇特的文章，和其他所有TPO文章都不同，它只有两个正文段，因此我们只能特别处理。
段落1：
团队资源丰富；并且，团队效率高，敢冒风险，这是因为责任均摊。
段落2：
更有成就感，因为能够参与决策，并且每个人都有机会出彩，这又是因为团队的成果影响力更大。
听力解析
在听之前，我们就应该极其谨慎，因为这是百里挑一的奇葩文章，因此听力的反驳估计也不见得按套路出牌，所以几乎只能完全依靠听力实力了。
I wanna tell you what one company found when… turn over…projects to teams of people…这个开头与众不同，直接说例子——一个公司研究团队工作的结果，我们期望不是什么好结果。“After about 6 months，the company… look at how well the teams performed.”是废话，没有信息。
On virtually every team, some members …free ride，有很多人会吃白食。其实这条信息不好说是反驳阅读的哪一条，勉强可以和“团队资源多”挂上钩，因为很多人根本不会贡献。didn't contribute much at all是废话。but if their team did a good job, they nevertheless benefit…这些不贡献的人仍然能够在团队成功时坐享其成。what about group members who worked especially well… the recognition… went to the group as a whole，优秀的贡献者却得不到特别的奖励。no names were named是废话；So… when the real contributors were asked how they felt… their attitude was just the opposite of what the reading predicts也是废话，这些优秀的个体肯定不开心。所以，这应该是和阅读中的rewarding形成了比对。
♦ 本段逻辑梳理：团队合作中总有人吃白食，坐享其成，而优秀人才却得不到特殊赞誉，自然不爽。
Another finding说明要分层了。projects just didn't move quickly很明显是和阅读部分对立，工作开展缓慢。took so long to reach consensus，这应该不会让我们意外，达成共识很难。took many meetings to build the agreement是废话。On the other hand说明要指出相反方面了。1 or 2 people… become very influential，这时确实是相反的，不需要听所有人意见了，有一两个意见权威，后面肯定不是什么好事。Sometimes when those influencers said“That will never work”about an idea… the idea was quickly dropped instead of being further discussed，他们想否决就否决；when …convinced …a plan of theirs was… creative… even though some …warn …the group… they were basically ignored，他们想推进就推进。这里正反两方面都在说当群体有领袖时，虽然不会进展缓慢，但导致的问题是决策专断。“When the project failed，the blame was placed on all”是说工作失败后，所有人都要担责任。这个段落听完，总的来说在两个方面和阅读形成了对立：首先，工程运行速度不见得更快。其次，并不是每个人都能参与到决策中，甚至这些人后面还要承担责任。
♦ 本段逻辑梳理：首先，团队不见得更快，因为要达成共识很慢。若是没有这个问题，那可能有一两个意见领袖，那这时就会决策专断，导致很多人的意见被忽略，但糟糕的是，当团队决策失败后，这些被忽略的人却也要和别人平摊责任。
满分范文
The article discusses several advantages of group work;however，thelecturerpresents acasestudy doneby acompany tha suggests otherwise.
For starters, the lecturer points out that not all of the group members in the study contributed in their task. In fact, there were always some free riders who nonetheless received benefits when the projects were completed. What's worse, the recognition of success went to the team as a whole without crediting particular contributors, so the ones that actually did a lot of work did not end up feeling good.
Second, opposite to what the reading claims, the lecturer pointed out that in some group projects, things moved forward quite slowly, because it took too long for the team to reach consensus because everybody's voice had to be heard.
On the other hand, according to the lecturer, in some groups where there were one or two leading voices, things might have worked out faster, but decisions were often made arbitrarily. For example, if these leading people felt that a plan wouldn't work, the idea would immediately be dropped without being discussed further; on the contrary, when they felt positive about a decision, they would push it and ignore all opposite opinions. The problem was that, when the project failed in the end, the blame went to everybody.
总结
请同学们务必不要以这篇文章作为参考，因为在整个将近50套TPO中，只有这一套用了这种非常不规则的模式，阅读和听力之间的对应性很差，阅读、听力结构都不完全清晰。我们并不需要将这种模式应用到综合写作中，因为实际考试中并不会出现这种奇怪的情况。