上海新航道托福培訓(xùn)小編特別整理了托?？荚嚨脑斍椋@次給大家?guī)砹藢懙年P(guān)于2021年5月26日托福獨(dú)立寫作范文及解析。希望幫助考生對照文本更好的研究真題，充分備考，爭取理想成績，實(shí)現(xiàn)留學(xué)夢想。

  托福獨(dú)立寫作題目-捐贈(zèng)給福利機(jī)構(gòu)的錢，你要決定用途嗎?

  Some charitable organizations (groups that help people in need) allow people who give money to charity to choose how their donations will be used. (For example, people can decide whether their donated money is spent directly on goods and services for people in need or on advertising by the charity.)

  If you were to give money to charity, would you prefer to choose how your donation is going to be used, or do you think it is more effective to leave that decision to the organization? Why?

  1

  Donating money to charitable organizations is a noble act. However, over the years many scandals have come to light in which funds were misappropriated, leading to a growing suspicion of the management of charities(交代背景). As a result, the argument has been raised over whether charitable organizations should be able to choose how the given money should be used(復(fù)述題目). While I understand why some people may feel this way, I still think that it is better to allow the organizations to decide how funds are allocated(作者立場).

  詞匯積累：

  * Whereby adv. 憑此，借此

  by which; because of which

  * Biased adj. 有偏見性的;片面的

  2

  First off, it is important to remember that these organizations are, for the most part, experts with the logistical knowledge required to handle whichever issue they are set up to deal with. Whether it is feeding malnourished children or building homes in underdeveloped countries, a vast quantity of details must be managed to successfully provide aid. In the example of feeding the hungry, people may demand that the money they donate be only used to purchase food. But the charity has the food and lacks the funds to transport or distribute that food to the people who need it. Thus, while it may feel good to control exactly what one’s given money is used for, it may not necessarily result in the best outcome for those whom the charity intends to help(作者理由一).

  3

  Another issue arises when those who donate money are given control over its disbursement: only the most well-advertised issues that a charity handles receive funding. A perfect example of this are foundations for endangered animals. Certain animals have been made mascots in order to attract charitable donations, the most famous of which is the World Wildlife Foundation’s Panda logo. If people who donated their money required the foundation to only spend funds on preserving pandas, then a significant of other rare or endangered species which the foundation protects would be neglected and face extinction. Therefore, it is better to let charities advertise as they must and then use the money collected in an equitable manner in order to provide the aid where it is needed most(作者理由二).

  4

  Admittedly, some charitable organizations have in fact been fronts(活動(dòng)區(qū)域) for embezzlement or worse crimes. A notorious charity scandal occurred in the 1990’s when Father Bruce Ritter, a Christian minister and founder of a charity designed to house homeless teenagers, was accused of assaulting people when they stayed at his facilities during their youth. It was also found that Ritter has siphoned off charity funds for his own personal use. Such an event was abhorrent, and it could easily be used to support the argument for more control by donors over how their money is spent(讓步). Fortunately, this example is a rare occurrence in the world of charities. Especially in the digital age now, many watchdog groups audit the budgets of charities, which are made publicly available by law. Therefore, there is no need for a direct line of control over donated money, and fears of misuse are largely misplaced(轉(zhuǎn)折).

  5

  Admittedly, some charitable organizations have in fact been fronts(活動(dòng)區(qū)域) for embezzlement or worse crimes. A notorious charity scandal occurred in the 1990’s when Father Bruce Ritter, a Christian minister and founder of a charity designed to house homeless teenagers, was accused of assaulting people when they stayed at his facilities during their youth. It was also found that Ritter has siphoned off charity funds for his own personal use. Such an event was abhorrent, and it could easily be used to support the argument for more control by donors over how their money is spent(讓步). Fortunately, this example is a rare occurrence in the world of charities. Especially in the digital age now, many watchdog groups audit the budgets of charities, which are made publicly available by law. Therefore, there is no need for a direct line of control over donated money, and fears of misuse are largely misplaced(轉(zhuǎn)折).