5月26日托福独立写作范文 | 捐赠给福利机构的钱，你要决定用途吗?

托福写作,托福写作,托福写作测试,托福写作培训,托福写作课程,易伯华教育

托福独立写作题目

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(复述题目). 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(作者立场).

词汇积累：

* Whereby adv. 凭此，借此

by which; because of which

* Biased adj. 有偏见性的;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(活动区域)

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(让步). 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(转折).

5、Admittedly, some charitable organizations have in fact been fronts(活动区域)

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(让步). 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(转折).