一、综合写作的引言段例一：阅读首段In the United States, employees typically work five days a week for eight hours each day. However, many employees want to work a four-day week and are willing to accept less pay in order to do so. A mandatory policy requiring companies to offer their employees the option of working a four-day workweek for four-fifths (80 percent) of their normal pay would benefit the economy as a whole as well as the individual companies and the employees who decided to take the option. 讲座首段Offering employees the options of a four-day workweek won’t affect the company profits, economic conditions or the lives of employees in the ways the reading suggests.在写引言段的时候我们必须搞清楚阅读和讲座的关系。一般在三分钟的阅读时间里，我们必须将阅读的主要观点和分论点都写下来，然后在听讲座的时候注意各个论点的关系。正常情况下，阅读和讲座的观点要么是“相反”的，要么是“不一致”的。而在上面这2段首段中，阅读和讲座的关系显然是属于“相反”，即阅读认为四天工作好，讲座觉得四天工作不好。在这种情况下，朗阁托福专家推荐考生先写讲座的观点，再写其与阅读观点的关系，如：The lecturer’s main point is that hiring an outsider to fill a managerial position in a company may have some negative impacts. This does not agree with the reading passage, which suggests that such a policy is beneficial to a company.这样的写作安排的好处就在于我们可以比较准确地使用动词“contradict”, “refute”, “disagree”等来直接表明讲座和阅读的关系；设想若在这里我们将阅读和讲座的观点先后并列地讲出来，起到的效果就不如之前这样的排列了，比如：In the reading passage, the author believes that a four-day workweek will benefit not only the company but also the individuals as well. However, the professor in the lecture argues that this policy is not as good as what the reading says.因此，关键在于表达的效果上，前者语气比较强，更能符合教授在讲座中的口吻，而后者尽管也是正确的写法，但是就欠缺了这样的表达效果。另一方面，若两篇文章的观点是“不一致”的，这个时候，先写阅读反而可以起到更好的效果。所谓“不一致”，也就是说两篇文章的观点是各自对立的，但又不是相反的关系，如TPO中有一篇讲美国的选举计票方式的文章，阅读认为电脑计票好，讲座则认为人工计票好。电脑和人工本身不属于相反的关系，因此两篇文章的观点就成为了“不一致”。写的时候就要注意先从阅读讲起比较好：In the reading passage, the author puts forward a theory that a computerized voting system is far more beneficial than the traditional voting. By contrast, the professor in the lecture believes that counting the votes by men is more reliable.在这种顺序下，若我们将上面例子中讲座的措辞稍微作一改变，又可以灵活适用于其他文章了，如：The professor counters this by asserting that...
二、综合写作的主体段从主体段来讲，写作顺序就相应比引言段要灵活很多了，不过我们还是可以遵循一定的写作规律：1. 若讲座信息记录不够完整，建议先从阅读分论点说起。2. 若讲座中的论据以举例为主，则先写讲座分论点。3. 若阅读分论点无法有效进行近义转换，则先写讲座的观点。以上三个条件是根据学生在实际听写讲座信息并提交完整作文的情况下总结出的写作规则。尽管本质上先写讲座或者是先写阅读观点对于最后的得分是没有直接关系的，但是合理安排顺序对于理顺文章的逻辑关系是非常重要的，比如前面提到的“四天工作制”的文章。Four-day week are beneficial Company: Increase profitsmore rested and fewer errorsat no additional costSpend more on training and medical benefitsMore office space, computersCountry, lower unemploymentNo additional job, current job unpleasantAsk 4-day employee to work overtimeExpect 4-day employee to finish 5 day’s workIndividual: more timedecrease job stabilityfirst to lose jobless chance of job advancementprefer 5 day employee as managers 我们可以先浏览一下两篇文章各自的分论点，不难发现第一段的讲座中举了很多例子，在这样的情况下，这段最好先从讲座的观点写起：First, according to the lecture, the four-day workweek will force the companies to spend a lot more putting much more into providing training and medical benefits for their new staff. The health benefits and some other costs will maintain the same level even though the workday is reduced to four days a week. Hiring more staff also requires extra office space and computers, which will quickly cut into company profits. The reading passage, by contrast, argues that companies will benefit because the employees will be more efficient and less tend to make mistakes.而第二个和第三个主体段里，讲座中并无出现太多例子，而主要是通过因果关系进行论证的。所以在这种情况下，我们一般可以选择先从阅读的分论点说起，然后再去讨论讲座的论点，但是要以讲座的内容为主，阅读只需要提到分论点，并且进行有效近义词转换即可：The second point of difference is regarding the increase of job vacancy. The reading says that a new employee could do the 80% work left by every 4 four-day workweek employee. However, the lecturer thought the companies may ask their employees to work over time to do the same amount of work they used to do in 5 days instead of hiring more staff. So there'll be no additional job for people and the current job will become unpleasant.Finally, the reading passage contends that the employees' life would be comfortable and free in that they can enjoy themselves with their friends and families. The lecture, however, gives the opposite view that the four-day workweek will decrease the employees' job ability and harm their chances for advancing their career, for the companies prefer some consistent person to take the managerial positions.