中国学生GRE写作中三大逻辑问题扣分点

中国学生GRE写作中三大逻辑问题扣分点，你有踩雷吗?下面小编就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。

中国学生GRE写作中三大逻辑问题扣分点

不管词汇有多么华丽(很多人说要用高级词。。。但是很多高级词都有固定搭配，乱用还不如不用)，句型有多么曼妙，GRE作文最重要的还是要把你的观点完整地传达给读者。这是文之根本。中国同学们的GRE作文问题主要集中在以下几个方面：

1、逻辑混乱。

2、过于主观。

3、中式思维/表达。

4、过分注重用词。

大体上来说，同学们的逻辑问题是最多的。逻辑问题有三种，通篇逻辑，段落之间，段落之中。

其实这可能和我们高中初中的英语教育有关系，大家都很喜欢一条一条摆原因。Firstly，secondly。。。然后后面至于这个ly后面是什么就不管了，一顿胡扯。也不管这段落与段落之间的衔接是否自然，反正都有什么ly给打头阵。

事实上，中西方的思维总是存在差异，很多时候看管老师们都不懂考生在说什么。考官很困惑，这个例子和这个有关系吗?为什么前面在说A，后面突然B了? 和结论什么关系?要记住一点，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keywords是不是和论点里的keywords一样，论点里的keywords又是不是和题目里的keywords一样。你的keywords可以比大题里的keywords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。

以上就是中国学生GRE作文三大逻辑问题失分点介绍，各位考生可以对症下药，进行克服。其实逻辑上的错误很难克服，很多大牛的著作里也经常会被后人挖出逻辑错误。但是我们至少要克服这些一眼就能看出的逻辑错误，才能让文章看起来更加舒适。

GRE考试高分作文精选

第三类题材 Science & Technology

Issue 30

"The primary goal of technological advancement should be to increase people's efficiency so that everyone has more leisure time."

The speaker contends that technology's primary goal should be to increase our efficiency for the purpose of affording us more leisure time. I concede that technology has enhanced our efficiency as we go about our everyday lives. Productivity software helps us plan and coordinate projects; intranets, the Internet, and satellite technology make us more efficient messengers; and technology even helps us prepare our food and access entertainment more efficiently. Beyond this concession, however, I find the speaker's contention indefensible from both an empirical and a normative standpoint.

The chief reason for my disagreement lies in the empirical proof: with technological advancement comes diminished leisure time. In 1960 the average U.S. family included only one breadwinner, who worked just over 40 hours per week. Since then the average work week has increased steadily to nearly 60 hours today; and in most families there are now two breadwinners. What explains this decline in leisure despite increasing efficiency that new technologies have brought about? I contend that technology itself is the culprit behind the decline. We use the additional free time that technology affords us not for leisure but rather for work. As computer technology enables greater and greater office productivity it also raises our employers' expectations--or demands--for production. Further technological advances breed still greater efficiency and, in turn, expectations. Our spiraling work load is only exacerbated by the competitive business environment in which nearly all of us work today. Moreover, every technological advance demands our time and attention in order to learn how to use the new technology. Time devoted to keeping pace with technology depletes time for leisure activities.

I disagree with the speaker for another reason as well: the suggestion that technology's chief goal should be to facilitate leisure is simply wrongheaded. There are far more vital concerns that technology can and should address. Advances in bio-technology can help cure and prevent diseases; advances in medical technology can allow for safer, less invasive diagnosis and treatment; advances in genetics can help prevent birth defects; advances in engineering and chemistry can improve the structural integrity of our buildings, roads, bridges and vehicles; information technology enables education while communication technology facilitates global participation in the democratic process. In short, health, safety, education, and freedom--and not leisure--are the proper final objectives of technology. Admittedly, advances in these areas sometimes involve improved efficiency; yet efficiency is merely a means to these more important ends.

In sum, I find indefensible the speaker's suggestion that technology's value lies chiefly in the efficiency and resulting leisure time it can afford us. The suggestion runs contrary to the overwhelming evidence that technology diminishes leisure time, and it wrongly places leisure ahead of goals such as health, safety, education, and freedom as technology's ultimate aims.

GRE写作官方题库高频ARGUMENT题目满分范文分享：charge people for using beach

GRE作文官方题库ARGUMENT题目：

The following is a letter to the head of the tourism bureau on the island of Tria:

"Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using the beaches. Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term, it will reduce the number of people using the beaches and will raise money for replenishing the sand. Replenishing the sand, as was done to protect buildings on the nearby island of Batia, will help protect buildings along our shores, thereby reducing these buildings' risk of additional damage from severe storms. And since the areas along the shore will be more attractive as a result, the beaches will be preserved and the area's tourist industry will improve over the long term."

【满分范文赏析】

This letter's author recommends charging fees for public access to Tria's beaches as means of raising funds for the purpose of saving Tria's tourist industry. The author reasons that while beach-access fees would reduce the number of beachgoers, it would provide revenue for replenishing beach sand needed to protect nearby buildings. The measures would thereby enhance the area's attractiveness lending to long-term improvement. To support the argument the author indicates that on a nearby island, beach sand was replenished thereby reducing the risk of storm damage to buildings. The argument is not entirely convincing for the following reasons.

【本段结构】

本文采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即C—A—F的开头结构。本段首先概括原文的Conclusion，之后简要提及原文为支持其结论所引用的一系列Assumption及细节，最后给出开头段到正文段的过渡句，指出原文的Flaw，即这些Assumption无法让原文的结论具有说服力。

【本段功能】

作为Argument开头段，本段具体功能就在于发起攻击并概括原文的结论，即为了保护Tria城市的旅游业，需要对使用Tria沙滩的游客采取收费政策。本段接下来提到了原文中为支持之前的Conclusion所提供的证据，尽管收费政策会是当地的游客减少，但是收集来的资金能够填补当地的用于保护临近建筑物的沙滩。此外，临近的岛屿在采取了相同的政策后，当地的沙滩得到了填补因此减少了暴风雨对建筑物的破坏。文章提及这些信息，为是在正文段中对这些Assumption即将进行的具体攻击做铺垫。

First of all, the assumptions regarding the effects of the proposed beach-access fees weaken the argument. The author ignores the possibility that charging fees might deter so many tourists that Tria would be worse off overall or that the vast majority of Tria's tourists and residents alike would happily pay for beach access. In either case, adopting the author's proposal might harm, rather than benefit, Tria's tourist industry in the long run.

【本段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第一个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。

【本段功能】

作为正文第一段，本段攻击原文所犯的第一个重要逻辑错误——因果类错误。原文假设通过采用收费政策，能够得到解决沙滩填补问题的资金。但是这样的因果关系并不一定成立，毕竟这个假设忽视了收费政策带来的负面影响。因此，原文的结论不成立。

Also consider the case of nearby Batia where replenishing beach sand has served to protect shoreline buildings. Tria may not be able to achieve the same protective measures due to some geographical difference between the two islands. Perhaps Batia is in a far better position than Tria financially to replenish its sand on a continual basis. In short, the argument fails to present any evidence indicating that the islands are, in all practical purposes, the same and that the proposed measures would have the same desired effect.

【本段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第二个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。

【本段功能】

作为正文第二段，本段攻击原文所犯的第二个重要逻辑错误——类比类错误。原文假设适用于Batia岛的政策也能适用于Tria岛。但是这样的类比并不一定成立，因为这两者之间可能存在很多差异性。因此在没有考虑到差异性的情况下，原文的这个假设也是不合理的。

Finally, let’s also take into account the fact that even if replenishing Tria's beach sand is financially feasible and would protect nearby buildings, no evidence present indicates that Tria's tourist industry would be saved. Perhaps Tria's tourist appeal has little or nothing to do with the beach and nearby buildings. For that matter, perhaps Tria's tourist appeal would be greater with fewer buildings along the coast. The author’s argument isn’t compelling because there is no link between the wellbeing of the buildings along the coast to the overall health of the tourist industry.

【本段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument结尾段结构，即C—S的结尾结构。首先再次重申原文Conclusion是站不住脚的，接下来给出可以增强原文说服力的合理的Suggestion，包括原文作者需要进一步提供的证据和细节信息等。

【本段功能】

段作为结尾段，具体功能即为总结归纳+提出建议。段落首先再次重申强调原文作者的论证不合理，接下来给出合理的建议：作者必须证明对沙滩游客采取收费的这种政策能够给保护沙滩的资金收集带来实际的正面效果，同时，沙滩的填补和临近建筑物的保护的确能够给当地的旅游业带来积极的作用。不难发现，结尾段总结提出的建议与正文各段中依次攻击的错误遥相呼应，即分别对应了样本类错误和因果类错误，这使全篇文章显得浑然一体。

中国学生GRE写作中三大逻辑问题扣分点相关文章：