GRE写作思路名师解析

GRE写作思路名师解析，快来一起学习吧，分享下面小编就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。

GRE写作思路名师解析

大体上来说，同学们在GRE作文中逻辑问题是最多的。逻辑问题有三种，通篇逻辑，段落之间，段落之中。

要记住一点，GRE文章是一个整体，你的开篇结尾和中部内容都是应该有关联的。也就是说，在开头提到的，文中应该有展开，同时在结尾有总结。中文里不也要求行文流畅么，这至少得要求逻辑是通顺的。

很多同学都很喜欢写中立观点“A不错，但不够好”，这虽然看起来很客观，但实际上对逻辑的要求非常高，要怎样去组织语言，组织相应的论据论点，非常考验人。

有同学想说A事件要瑕疵互见，但是写着写着就乱七八糟，东一块西一块，不知道在讲点什么了。更有厉害的索性冗长的2000来词，讲了个空话。所以建议刚上手的同学，还是选择一边倒，站定脚跟不放松。即便是真的要写中立观点，实际上也都在A和B之间有所偏好。

此外，现在很多人会要求练writing的时候先写提纲。于是同学们们就只写一个观点，然后后面的例子乱用，或者根本没有弄清楚什么是例子。事实上，这种展开，可以是实例，也可以是虚拟的假设。实例中往往分自己的经验和他人的经验。那么怎样的例子有说服力呢?

一般来说是：名人名事(知名度大)> 众人众事(样本大)>自己经历(体会深)>他人经历。假设往往不够有说服力，因为很难涉及到每一个变量。但是假设在有的时候可以行得通，就是在很难说清楚步骤和因果关系的时候，用一个假设场景来推导会让文章变得浅显易懂。

所以建议，在刚开始上手写toefl作文的时候，先不要给自己30分钟的压力，先列出提纲(10分钟)，再用30分钟去写，看能写多少。

记住你的举例一定要死死扣住你的观点，不要是和观点打擦边球的。比如我改过之前一个小朋友的文章，她的大观点是电脑对学生来说是有益的，小观点是，可以查到很多资料，然后例子是可以用google查到很多资料，很快捷。

ok，乍一看这个没有问题。但是实际上问题大了，用goole查到很多资料，是因为电脑还是internet?这很容易就偏题了，变成 internet对学生来说是有益的。例子一定要从论点出发，再回到论点。不要将你的论点发散，后果很可能就是越写越跑题。所以每次写好一篇文章，都看看，论据里的key words是不是和论点里的key words 一样，论点里的key words又是不是和题目里的key words一样。你的key words 可以比大题里的key words更加narrow，但是千万不要更加广泛。

最后说的逻辑错误，是段落中逻辑比较容易错的。一般是对接续词的运用。如However, thus, therefore，他们决定了上下文之间的关系，但是很多读起来就很奇怪，两者完全不是转折的关系，用了however，就会让人觉得有些无厘头。

或者就是上下文之间完全没有逻辑联系，就是两个单句凑在了一起。还是这句话，一篇文章和流水似的，不能断。中间断了那就不叫好文章了。即使前一句与有一句没有接续词，它们在逻辑上也是要能承接的。

GRE考试作文：丑闻

Scandals-whether in politics， academia， or other areas-can be useful.They focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.

丑闻――无论是政治、学术还是其他领域――可能会是有用的。丑闻可以用演说家或者改革家无法使用的手段让我们注意到某些问题。

GRE写作范文：

Scandals occur in nearly every field that human set foot in， both revealed and incubative.Once people recognize that the person they adored yesterday is actually a liar by the exposednesses of his scandal， the first reaction may be anger， sorrow and depression.However， if rational rethinking and remediation have been taken after the reports of scandals， actually greater progresses can always be achieved compared with the efforts made by the daily boring speeches made by speakers and reformers.

Scandals can clearly show us the hidden unreasonable and unjust regulations， therefore administers or the public can adjust or even correct those errors. After the Watergate Event， not only President Nixon lost his job， but further influence was conducted by the public and medium. They realized that the problem of the abuse of power which was neglected in the past. As a result， a closer scrutiny upon the high officials of government prevents them from abusing their power any longer. Recently， the filthy relationship between Juventus Club and several references was publicized by medium， which shocked the football circle by those large holes in the institutions of football league and thus forced the Italia Football Association to take actions towards Juventus， references and the ill institutions. While Juventus has been deprived the former championship， a series of more appropriate regulations have at last been added into the football systems. There is no denying that those scandals indeed prohibit the daily operations and developments of certain fields to some extent， but these deleterious effects can be temporary， if proper measures have been done immediately. In this case， scandals may become stimulations that can provoke the awareness of the emergency of the scandals， which is necessary for establishment of an ultimate solutions to the present problems.

Furthermore， compared with the accomplishments endowed by the professional speakers and reformers， the progresses made by the aftereffects of scandals are often more significant and fast. A scandal maker usually has his position in high status， which grants him power great enough to make his underground and illegal behavior so harmful and astonishing that it can be called a scandal. Before their scandals have been known to the public， they are generally admired and trusted by their superiors and inferiors， as well as the medium and public. Therefore， it is difficult or even impossible for speakers and reformers to win the battle against those scandal makers and their inequitable laws or regulations without the support of anyone. No one believes or even pays attention on whatever the speakers and reformers assert， if the scandal makers are trying to cover up those events by their power and trust they gained at the same time. Consequently those errors remain forever. Once the secrets of the scandal makers give away， however， their aura fades， legends evaporate， so does the trust and power endued. Under such circumstances that all sides feel unsatisfied and disappointed， it is much easier for reformers to draw the focus on their ameliorative allegations towards the long existed problems， and thus， the improvements can be made. Perhaps it may be strange to accept the ironic conclusion that scandals do play a more vital role in healing the morbid system of a certain realm than those reformers do sometimes， but oftentimes it is scandal that helps the reformers a lot to strike their targets， which leads to a future primary achievements for society.

Despite the forgoing contributions of scandals， they are not without its apparent problems. Hypersensitive worries may lead serious disorders or even disasters. A threshold trouble is about the excessive revealment of privacies of the officials， stars， or other persons who were doubted to have scandals. This was often done by some so-called responsible mediums in the name of observation the social problems. As a result， the bothered officials or the stars can hardly utilize their full abilities to fulfill their tasks or jobs. Just to meet the curiosity of the public so that they can bolster their sales and profits， these mediums' detective behaviors will inevitably bring about disorders to those who in charge in some areas. Secondly， overstatements of the grave effects of scandals may shadow the contributions of the scandal makers unfairly. Although Clinton was accused by his rose event， his dedication towards the resuscitation and prosperity of America's economy during his term of office cannot be denied. If his fault was overemphasized present， he may have to resign immediately， and his economic ability can no longer serve the society，which is an obvious loss of the society.

To be just， I acknowledge that most people hate to witness scandals happening around them. What is more， recessions and the private violations always come along with scandals.Nevertheless， seeing from another angle， if the scandals are in fact ineluctable， it may be wiser to bravely face with the extant problems. We should find them out and then correct them rather than simply denying their existence.

GRE写作官方题库高频ARGUMENT题目满分范文分享：student evaluation of professors

GRE作文官方题库ARGUMENT题目：

The following appeared in a memorandum from a dean at Omega University.

“Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall student grade averages at Omega have risen by thirty percent. Potential employers apparently believe the grades at Omega are inflated; this would explain why Omega graduates have not been as successful at getting jobs as have graduates from nearby Alpha University. To enable its graduates to secure better jobs, Omega University should now terminate student evaluation of professors.”

【满分范文赏析】

In this memo Omega University’s dean points out that Omega graduates are less successful in getting jobs than Alpha University graduates, despite the fact that during the past 15 years the overall grade average of Omega students has risen by 30%. The dean indicates that during the past 15 years Omega has encouraged its studentsto evaluate the effectiveness of their professors. The dean reasons that student evaluations led professors to increase grades, which has, in turn, created a perception among employers that the grades of Omega graduates are not actually representative of their real quality. The dean concludes that to enable Omega graduates enjoy better job placement, the university must terminate its professor-evaluation procedure. This argument is unconvincing because it contains several flaws in logic.

【本段结构】本段采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即C—E—F的开头结构。段落首先概括原文的Conclusion，接下来概括原文为支持其结论所引用的一系列evidence，最后给出开头段到正文段的过渡句，指出原文在逻辑上含有多处Flaw。

【本段功能】本段作为Argument开头段，具体功能就在于发起攻击并概括原文的结论，即：为了让其毕业生获得更好的工作，Omega大学应该现在停止学生评估教授的程序。本段分布列举了原文为支持其结论所引用的证据——尽管在过去15年内Omega学生的总平均成绩提高了30%，Omega大学的毕业生在就业时不如Alpha大学的毕业生成功、学生对教授的评估导致教授提高成绩，进而使雇主们产生Omega毕业生的成绩不能代表他们的真实品质这一印象等等。这些信息的归纳为正文段中即将进行的具体攻击作铺垫。

One problem with the argument is that the current evaluation process is not a mandatory one and the deandoesn’t state how many people participated. The dean provides no evidence about the number of students or percentage of the study body who participate in the procedure. Without such evidence,drawing a link between the evaluation of professors and their grading trends is not possible. Without such a link, an audience cannot be expected to accept that the termination of the above-mentioned evaluation would, in fact, have any effect on grading.

【本段结构】本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第一个逻辑错误的错误类型和其在原文中出现的位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

【本段功能】本段作为正文第一段，攻击原文中出现的第一个重要逻辑错误——调查类错误。本段指出学校现有的评估过程不是强制性的，院长也没有说明有多少人参与了调查。院长没有对参与这一程序的学生人数或在学生群体中所占的百分比提供证据。如果没有这样的证据，是不可能建立学生对教授的评估和教授的评分趋势之间的联系的。如果没有如此联系，不能指望观众接受学生对教授的评估的终止将对教授的评分产生任何影响这一论断。

The argument is based on the assumption that the grade-average increase is somehow related to the evaluation procedurerather than some other phenomenon. The dean ignores a host of other possible explanations for the increase. For example, a trend at Omega toward higher admission standards, or higher quality instruction or facilities could have produced the increased grades. Without ruling out this or other possible explanations for the grade-average increase, the dean cannot expect to convince an audience that by terminating the evaluation procedure Omega would curb its perceived grade inflation, let alone help its graduates get jobs.

【本段结构】本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第二个逻辑错误的错误类型和其在原文中出现的位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

【本段功能】本段作为正文第二段，攻击原文中出现的第二个重要逻辑错误——忽略他因。原文假设平均成绩的提升是以某种方式和评估的程序而不是某种其它的现象联系起来的。院长忽视了诸多于这一成绩提升的其它可能解释。例如，Omega录取学生标准提高的趋势或高质量的教学和设施均可能导致了成绩的提升。本段最后指出：院长在没有排除这些其它可能导致平均成绩提升的解释之前，是不能指望说服观众Omega大学停止其评估程序将抑制其成绩通胀，更不用提将帮助其毕业生找到工作了。

Even if the evaluation procedure has resulted in grade inflation at Omega, the dean’s claim that grade inflation explains why Omega graduates are less successful than Alpha graduates in getting jobs is unjustified. The dean overlooks a myriad of other possible reasons for Omega’s comparatively poor job-placement record. Perhaps Omega’s career services are inadequate.Perhaps Omega’s curriculum does not prepare students for the job market as effectively as Alpha’s. In short, without the true results of a comparative analysis, there is no way we can determine that this is why graduates have been less successfully placed.

【本段结构】本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第三个逻辑错误的错误类型和其在原文中出现的位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

【本段功能】本段作为正文第三段，攻击原文中出现的第三个重要逻辑错误——忽略他因。即使评估程序导致了Omega学生的成绩通胀，院长关于为什么Omega的毕业生在就业时没有Alpha的毕业生成功的论断也不能被证明正确。院长忽视了种.种其它可能导致Omega就业情况记录较差的原因。或许Omega的职业服务不适当，或许Omega的课程不能像Alpha的课程那样有效地为学生们的就业做准备。本段最后指出：如果没有一个比较分析的真实结果，我们无从决定这就是毕业生就业并不成功的理由。

Even if the dean can prove the assumptions, his assertion that Omega must terminate its evaluation procedure to enable its graduates to find better jobs is still unwarranted. First, the dean ignores other ways that Omega could potentially increase its job-placement record. For example, by improving its public relations or career-counseling services, the university may be able to gain a better reputation and deliver better potential employees. Second, the dean seems to equate “more” jobs with “better” jobs—there is no analysis of the jobs that Alpha graduates were placed in. In other words, even if more Omega graduates were able to find jobs as a result of the dean’s recommended course of action, the kinds of jobs Omega graduates find would not necessarily be better ones.

【本段结构】本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第四个逻辑错误的错误类型和其在原文中出现的位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

【本段功能】本段作为正文第四段，攻击原文中出现的第四个重要逻辑错误——因果类错误。即使院长能够证实前述假设，他关于Omega必须停止其评估程序以使其毕业生找到更好的工作的断言依然是无根据的。首先，院长忽视了Omega可以潜在地提高其就业记录的方式，例如改善其公共关系或职业咨询服务等。其次，院长似乎将“更多的”工作和“更好的”工作划等号，也没有对Alpha的毕业生所处的工作进行分析。换而言之，即使院长所建议的行动促使更多的Omega毕业生能够找到工作，他们所找到的工作的种类也并不一定是更好的。

GRE写作思路名师解析相关文章：