TOEFL Writing Task 1 [Integrated Task] – Practice Test #025

This TOEFL Writing Task 1 (Integrated Writing) practice test provides an authentic experience with a real reading passage and a corresponding audio lecture. Follow the instructions carefully to simulate the exam and assess your skills accurately.

TOEFL Integrated Writing Detailed Instructions

Read the passage: You will read an academic passage on a topic, usually about 3 minutes.
Listen to the lecture: After reading, you will hear a lecture on the same topic, presenting a different perspective or additional information. You will not be able to see the reading passage while listening.
Take notes: While reading and listening, take notes on the key points and main ideas. Most of your focus should be on the lecturer since the passage is already available for reference.
Refer back to the reading: You can review the reading passage after the listening portion is complete.
Stay objective: Avoid adding personal thoughts, agreeing or disagreeing with the speaker, or evaluating the quality of their arguments. The key is to remain neutral and accurately report what each source says. Think of yourself as a reporter: your task is to explain what each side claims, how their points relate to each other, and how the lecture challenges the reading.
Organize clearly and have a plan: Use clear structure with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. Personally, I prefer writing a concise introduction that presents both sides and briefly states their main reasons, followed by three body paragraphs, each focusing on one point and discussing it from both perspectives. If done properly, there’s no real need for a conclusion, especially since this isn’t a personal or opinion-based essay.
Write your response: Summarize the main points from the lecture and explain how they relate to or challenge the points in the reading passage.
Stay within the word limit: Your response should be 150-225 words.
Proofread: Ensure your grammar, spelling, and sentence structure are accurate.
Submit your writing: Use the form below to privately submit your writing for review, or post it publicly in the comment section at the bottom of the page.
Feedback (optional): Order detailed written analysis or a video session to review your response using the official TOEFL writing criteria and identify specific areas for improvement.

Reading Passage

Burning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash, a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals. Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harmful chemicals may be doing to the environment and suggest that the United States government should create new, much stricter regulations for handling and storing coal ash. However, representatives of power companies take the opposite view; they argue that new regulations are unnecessary and might actually have negative consequences. They use the following arguments to support their position.

First, power company representatives point out that effective environmental regulations already exist. For example, one very important regulation requires companies to use liners—special material that prevents coal ash components from leaking into the soil and contaminating the surrounding environment. Companies that dispose of coal ash in disposal ponds or landfills must use liners in every new pond or landfill they build.

Second, some analysts predict that creating very strict rules for storing and handling coal ash might discourage the recycling of coal ash into other products. Currently, a large portion of coal ash generated by power plants is recycled: it is used, for example, in building materials such as concrete and bricks. Recycling coal ash reduces the need to dispose of it in other ways and presents no environmental danger. However, if new, stricter rules are adopted for handling coal ash, consumers may become concerned that recycled coal ash products are just too dangerous and may stop buying the products.

Finally, strict new regulations would result in a significant increase in disposal and handling costs for the power companies, perhaps as much as ten times the current costs. Power companies would be forced to increase the price of electricity, which would not be welcomed by the general public.