GRE写作高分需要避免哪些问题

GRE写作高分需要避免哪些问题,我们一起来看看吧，下面小编就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。

GRE写作高分需要避免哪些问题

新GRE写作要避免的几点：

.避免观点重复;不要讲了几遍其实都是一个理由。当你一点就能说明的时候，非要讲三遍就显的有点STUPID了。你要从多个方面来讲道理，而且要尽量把问题具体化。

.避免观点的庸俗化，并考虑美国人能否接受的问题。比如说要避免对任何宗教词批判太多。因为你永远搞不懂给你判分的是信什么教的。不能批判任何政治理想。不能贬低自己所在的国家。美国人最讨厌不爱自己国家的人。避免观点的庸俗化，就是我们说的有些东西可以想，但是不能写出来GRE考斯作文逻辑思路分为两种。一种是问题发挥型，一种是argument/争论型。

对于问题发挥型题目，你怎么发挥，怎么犯逻辑错误都没有问题，只要你能保证你观点的正确，并能用具体的事实证明你的观点。而对于 argument/争论　型题目就不同了。它的出题方式是给你一段话，这段话后再给出一个总结。然后让你挑出它的逻辑错误。需要你作的是.它的结论或者对其加以补充。你只要拿出三点理由把它.就行了。这三点理由从哪里找呢，从文章里面找，从文章的周边关系找，从文章的背后找。

下面举一个例子：现在有一种计算机仪表设备，把它安在商用飞机上之后就必然能避免飞机在空中的碰撞。因为一架飞机发出碰撞信号后，另一架飞机就能接收这个信号并及时采取行动，从而避免飞机碰撞。

这里结论就是飞机必然能避免碰撞。你要做的就是.这个结论。它的因果关系是因为安装了仪表所以能够避免碰撞。你要说的是安装了仪表不一定能避免碰撞。现在你就要找出3点理由来。

1.　文章中没有任何统计数据告诉我们飞机的碰撞百分之百是商用飞机，因此如果避免碰撞，就要在所有飞行物上安装这种仪表。

2.　安装了仪表后，是否需要人来操作。如果是，那么因为有人的原因，就不能避免碰撞。

3.　要是这个仪表系统坏了。

4.　也没有谈到气候问题，卫星干扰问题等干扰因素……

所以Argument文章不需要你有文采，也不需要你有多么好的句子结构，它只是要求你的逻辑没有漏洞。

大家有时间的话务必把AI的提纲都列掉，然后挑重复率高的写。比如ISSUE里面有一道The GREatest indicator of a nation...。另外有一点很重要的是，特别是对于A大家在写完几篇文章以后，尽快归纳出针对每一个instruction的模板，question这种可以写成一类，然后背出来。其实老G和新G的区别就在于，老G是一套模板走天下，新G准备4个模板，就这么简单。以后自己联系的时候，就根据模板来套，写到后来你会发现，你写出来的文章，不管题目怎么换，写出来的东西看起来都一样，这样Argument算基本练成了。模板最好自己写，根据头几篇写的文章来归纳。比如说我关于specific evidence这种题型，自己归纳的模板。

The argument is well presented and appears to be relatively sound at the first glance,the author concludes that__________. However, a close scrutiny about the argument will reveal that several specific evidences should be added in order to make the argument to be more cogent and convincing, for example:_________

Initially, the author must give evidence that_________. If we were to learn that _______, it would obviously weaken the conclusion. It may turn out to be that_____. To make his assurance eloquent, he must provide more specific evidences to consummate his argument.

Secondly, in order to______, we should also be informed that_______. In the argument, the author only said that__________. It may undermine the argument that if-_______. Without knowing_______, we can hardly accept the conclusion that______

Third, the author should eliminate the disturbance of other factors, for example, he should provide evidences that _______. Perhaps_____ or perhaps________. Either of these scenarios, if true, would cast serious doubt on the author’s claim. Without accounting for all other explanations, the arguer can't reasonably conclude that___________; U% z$ w' U$ r. f" x1 z" e; Q+ s

To sum up, the argument is far from powerful enough to substantiate that______________ Before any final decisions are made about_____________, much more specific evidences are to be put forward to make the author's argument more forceful and cogent.

真正写的时候，先把第一段和最后一段都写了，然后每段写个第一句，列出框架。最好能在第一段把你要写的内容都先简要概括一下：

话题还是回到准备A的过程上，当你归纳出模板以后，接下来要做的事情就很简单了，找到新老题库的对应表，然后自己照着新题库一题一题地把提纲列出来，不会的看一下老题是怎么写的。这个时候不需要写很多文章，只是归纳提纲就行，记住归纳的时候要把可能发生的情况写出来，因为到了考试的时候想不出可以rival的情况那不是悲剧了，比如这个题中的一个evidence：

The reason why students choose Buckingham College.

Perhaps it has qualified teachers.

Perhaps tuition fee is lower than colleges at the same level.

等你把这两件事情都做完，A的准备就差不多了，以后就是每天花半个小时左右的时间一遍遍熟悉题库。

按照这种方法，我真正准备A的时间只有5天，后来的那段时间都只是每天花半个小时写3篇作文的提纲写的话不用太多，3-4天写一篇保持手感就行了。

关于ISSUE，方法也差不多，主要的问题就是写提纲一定要仔细，把你对这个问题的观点，和引用的例子都写出来，不要想着自己能套一些Roosevelt, King什么的，想想就可以了，没有那么多例子让你套，还是要老老实实准备提纲。我写过一套完整的issue和argument的提纲，写的时候例子也放在提纲里，ISSUE跟A也一样，写完一遍提纲，自己重新看，到最后就是训练自己看到一个题，在2分钟以内迅速组织出一个比较详细的提纲。这样ISSUE的准备也就差不多了。

GRE issue写作优秀实例：意见同与不同

issue1题目：

We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own; disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning.

通常，我们从与我们意见相同的人身上学到的要比从那些与我们意见相悖的人身上学的东西要多得多;(因为)意见不统一会带来压力并且阻碍学习。

正文：

From people whose views we share we get confidence, encouragement, and psychological satisfaction; from people whose views contradict our own we get new angles, fresh perspectives, and pertinent advices. But excessive agreements would lead us to the morass of self-complacence; and extreme contradictions would weaken our determination of learning. Thus we should fully recognize the potential danger of limiting our vision in one of the two sides. And only through the approach of paying equal attention to both sides could we make further achievements in the process of learning.

Views and ideas from people agree with us may raise our confidence, strengthen our courage, and enhance our psychological satisfaction. According to common sense and our everyday experience, the propensity to accept the ideas from people who agree with us rather than the opinions from people disagree with us associates strongly with the nature of human beings, for we are social animals and it is the inner instinct of us to seek for approval of others. Imagine, what would you react if the work accomplished by your arduous efforts receives fierce criticism or not even a glance? You would lose your strength to march in the long road of learning.

On the contrary, agreements may cause the feeling of being accepted and consented, thus we gain the psychological satisfaction which will impulse us to learn more. Moreover, customarily, we tend to imitate and share ideas and behaviors from our parents, friends, classmates and so forth, who are in the same group of ours. By this way we form knowledge of our own. Not under all circumstances we can learn from people whose views we share. Only base on the premises that all the views of our assenters are authentic and sincere, however, could we learn useful knowledge from them. On condition that people consent and even flatter us for certain purposes which have nothing to do with learning, our learning would be hindered instead of motivated. We would be possessed in the illusive pride and limited in a narrow bound of vision. Consequently, we can see that the speaker’s assertion is incomplete and oversimplified.

Contradicting views and ideas could aware us of the mistakes and flaws in our work which we can not discover by ourselves, bring us fresh angles and perspectives, and then make our work mature and complete. Thereby through the discussion and competition both we and the people disagree with us could make advancements in our learning. Debate on the same subject make it possible for human beings to make most of the achievements and advances on fields of science, technology, philosophy and the like. If we see only on the one side of the coin, we could get only a partial and distorted knowledge and view which might mislead our learning.

Also, contradiction may cause negative effects under certain conditions, especially when the debate becomes irrational denouncement or personal attack. Then our confidence would be impaired by the criticisms and our learning inhibited by the stress excessive contradictions brings us. Disagreements would be detrimental rather than beneficial to our learning under this circumstance.

Bias on each of the two sides is detrimental to our learning for that agreements and disagreements form a organic entity which can not be absolutely divided. Over reliance on one side is blind and unwise. Agreements base on no evidence are actually flatters; disagreements without rational reasons are reprimands. We would be enmeshed in the web of self-contention sewed by ourselves and could not go ahead if we and blinded by the flatters; we would be frozen in the chilly night of darkness created by reprimands and became helpless and hopeless. We must pay equal attentions on both sides to see the whole picture.

To sum up, ideas of people whose views we share and people whose views contradict our own play their respective role in our learning, and none of them should be neglected. Therefore, balance between both sides is needed. And only through this way could we achieve the further goal in our process of learning.

GRE issue写作优秀实例：审查的公正性

题目：

Censorship is rarely, if ever, justified.

审查很少能够做到公正。

正文：

“Censorship” is a word which seems to be authoritative rather than democratic, which implies the will of the governors rather than the will of general people. Since the occurrence of the censorship, which could be traced back to the Ancient Rome, it has been playing an important part in the domestic affairs while arousing applause and condemnation as well. Here the our government faces a dilemma, is it fair to carry on the censorship at the cost of sacrificing part of democracy, or just open the gate letting flows of ideas and thoughts in, at the risk of losing its own rampart.

Since censorship suggest an act of changing or suppressing speech, writing or any other forms of expression that is condemned as subversive of the common good, it must have a close relationship with the one who applies such supervision, and the word “common good” should be redefined under different conditions. There is time when we were all under a powerful monarchy, and the “common good” is the “monarch good”, then the censorship itself is the instrument of the monarch which solely depended on the will of the monarch; in the Middle Ages, both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Churches practiced censorship that seemed to be oppressive to any ideas challenging the doctrines of churches and the existence of God; even now, in some authoritative countries, the censorship is used to rule its people by restricting their minds, of course, for the stability of their governing over the people. With these regards, censorship itself is questioned at the rationality of existing, regardless of the practices made by the democratic government, while the justice of the democratic government is quite doubtable.

The matter concerning is not only who practices the censorship but also how it is practiced. Since different men make different comments on the same work of art, for example, it is hard to set up a measure by which we could decide whether one should be prohibited, especially to the work of arts, as its content always labeled as “subversive” and “revolutionary”, two words detested by the governors most. Such cases could be found in Ulysses by J. Joyce and Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H Lawrence, these two great novels were firstly considered to be guilty of obscenity and were put to prohibition by the American government, but turned out to be true masterpieces today. So any form of censorship, to some extent, lags behind the development of ideas and will put more or less a negative effect on their development.

Though the censorship is such a disgusting word embodying so much oppression and might, it is a compromise we made with the reality far from being perfect, to provide a comparative stable ground which we could stand on. At this point, I don’t agree with the institute like ACLU who oppose any censorship. The censorship, though rarely justified, should exist as long as a more ideal and practical form is found to replace it, or we could only expect our God to create a more ideal species instead of imperfect human beings.

GRE写作高分需要避免哪些问题相关文章：