GRE写作：怎样培养模仿能力
推荐文章
GRE写作：怎样培养模仿能力
怎样培养GRE写作模仿能力?今天小编给大家带来 GRE写作：怎样培养模仿能力，希望能够帮助到大家，下面小编就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。
GRE写作：怎样培养模仿能力
1.要有可以模仿的文章(最好是带有说理性的文章);
2.你要理解这个文章，理解它的用词、句子结构、段落结构;
3.这些文章都有正确的中文翻译。同时，文章的长度不能超过500字。
然后，要怎么模仿：
我给大大家举个例子，首先要分析文章，分析每一句和上一句是什么关系。美国人写作文的一个特点是，通常每段的第一句都包含了整段文字的内容，也就是我们常说的topic sentence.。另一个特点是当你写完一个句子后，你要问WHY。你提出一个问题，然后给出一个圆满的回答，这就是一篇优秀的作文。
最后，新GRE作文模仿能力培养具体操作步骤：
注意两点能力：
1.抽象的能力(abstract);
2.具体的能力(details/examples)。
具体化并不代表要写一个完整的故事。但是任何一篇文章都要给人一个具体的意向。通过具体的东西来描述才能给人塌实的感觉。具体化只要举出几个地方、几个名字、几件小事就可以了。
为什么好多同学作文中分数很低呢，就是因为，他提出了问题却没有回答。
你通过不断的模仿写作，就可以不断的纠正语法和词组错误。如何把抽象和具体结合起来是一个重点，如何在一个段落中只表达一个思想，这是另一个重点。美国人的判分特点是，如果你在一段中表达了一个以上的思想，那你的分数就不会高了。
分析完一篇文章后，怎么模仿着写呢?就是看着中文的翻译，把上面的英文一字不落的写下来，当你实在想不起来的时候，再看原文。等到写完之后，和原文对照一下，看看是谁写的漂亮。
我刚刚开始模仿写作的时候发现，模仿了几天后，写作水平的确提高了。因为根据记忆学原则，这个单词你背过、读过，它都不能写在你的文章中间。如果一个单词可以经常出现在你的脑子和文章中间，那这只证明了一件事，就是你写过这个字。但是你自己写作你不可能用到这个字，那就只有一个可能，就是你在模仿文章时写过这个字。如果一个结构别人写不出来，你能写出来，那你的分数就会高。
通过不断的模仿你的几大能力就会得到提高：
1.你的语法错误会越来越少;
2.句子结构能力越来越强;
3.用词能力大大增加。
GRE写作满分范文赏析
"The best ideas arise from a passionate interest in commonplace things."
I can agree with the statement above that, "The best ideas arise from a passionate interest in commonplace things. " The statement is an accurate description of how many people form great ideas from ordinary things in life. Sports are all great ideas that are made from commonplace things. What makes sports some of the best ideas is not what they began as but what they evolved into.
All athletic competitions began from commonplace things being brought together for the purpose of entertainment, excercise, and social interaction. Many of the sports people enjoy today are the results of someone's idea creating a new dimension of our lifestyle out of an ordinary object. Baseball, basketball, and track especially show that the idea of creating something wonderful out of ordinary objects is true.
Who would have thought that a stick and a ball would spawn into a national pastime, a generational tie between father and son, , a national bond between all races, and a multibillion dollar industry. Baseball began when someone decided to throw a ball at someone with a stick and that person with the stick would then try to hit the ball. What a simple concept and what a wonderful consequence.
Today the simple game of baseball is played all over the world. It is a sport that crosses international divides of religion, race, and politics. This one simple game, a bat hitting a ball, can bring the whole world together. But baseball is just one sport that shows the ablitiy to bridge cultural gaps.
When Mr. Naismith nailed a peachbasket to a post and threw a ball into it he had no idea that millions of people would be playing his game today. Mr. Naismith invented the game of basketball, which most everyone has played at some point in his or her life. Throwing a ball into a basket. What could be more simple or commonplace than a ball and a peach basket.
Today, basketball is the new American pastime. It replaced baseball because it is cheaper than baseball and it can be played by only one person. This interest in balls and new uses for them, as we can see in both baseball and basketball, brought about a huge social phenomena of excercise and new social interaction that would bring people together rather than divide them.
It doesn't take a ball to create a sport from a commonplace item. Track and field has no balls used in it, unless you consider the shotput a ball. The whole sport of track and field is made of simple ideas: running, jumping, and throwing. Simple but yet it is one of the most watched events worldwide as evidenced by the recent Olympic Games. For example, team relay races consist of four people running around an oval track passing a baton to each other. A baton that is the only object you need to have a relay race,a baton is definetly a commonplace thing. Yet this event has such stars as Carl Lewis who is known world wide.
Sports and how they were created is the epitome of the idea that "the best ideas arise form a passionate interest in commonplace things." What might have seemed boring at the time of hitting a ball, or throwing a ball into a net, or passing a baton are all now events that millions take part in and even more watch. What makes these ideas great is that they all bring people from different backgrounds together, wether they intended to or not.
COMMENTARY
This essay presents a thoughtful, if not very well-developed, discussion of the issue. Drawing examples from the world of sports, the writer notes that most sports begin with a simple idea. Baseball, for example, "began when someone decided to throw a ball at someone with a stick and that person with the stick would then try to hit the ball." From this simple idea came a sport that is played and enjoyed all over the world. Instead of focusing solely on the universal appeal of sports, however, the essay introduces the idea that sports cross "international divides of religion, race, and politics." This is a perceptive idea, but it is not effectively supported or sustained.
Throughout the essay, ideas are expressed clearly and word choice is accurate. Sentences are at times well formed and varied: "Today the simple game of baseball is played all over the world. It is a sport that crosses international divides of religion, race, and politics. This one simple game, a bat hitting a ball, can bring the whole world together." On the whole, however, this is a 5 essay; it lacks the syntactic sophistication and insightful analysis necessary for a score of 6.
GRE写作满分范文赏析
"The best ideas arise from a passionate interest in commonplace things."
Even the most brilliant thinkers, from Socrates to Satre, live lives in time. A childhood, an adolescence, an adulthood; these are common to me and you as well as the greatest writers. Furthermore, many of the great thinkers we esteem in our Western culture lived somewhat unevetful lives. What distinguished their life from say a common laborer was their work. Therefore, what provided the grist for their work? One might say that they were brilliant and this alone was sufficient to distinguish their lives from the masses. Intellect alone can not devise situations or thoughts from no where; there must be a basis and that basis is most common, if not always, observation of the common, of the quotidian. Critics of this idea may argue that these thinkers were products of fine educations and were well schooled in the classics. This, they may point to, is the real basis for their knowledge. I would agrue that although it may be a benefit to study classics and be well schooled in diverse disciplines, these pursuits merely refine and hone an ability each and every person has, the ability to study human nature. Where best to study human nature than in the day to day routine each one of us can witness in him or herself or those around us.
I propose that the two best disciplines to understand this power of the commonplace and its ability to cause a groundswell of thought are philosophy and literature. Every school of philosophy, from the Greeks to our day, share a common mission or intent and that is to understand and explain human existence, with all of its concommitant features. Generally speaking, the Greek philosophers, epitomized in Aristotle, attempted to set down rules for human behavior founded on logic. These rules applied not only to the rare forms of human behavior but largely focused on the more mundane motions of daily life. Many of Aristotle's rules were based on his observations of others as well as himself. Contrast this venture with the existentialists of our century who attempted to look behind the real motivations of human behavior as well understand man's relation to the Universe. To do this, what did these philosophers do? They studied those around them; they submerged themselves in the commonplace, in cities with hordes of annonymous people. While the existentialists, as well those philosophers before, exploited their uncommon eduation and intellect, the basis for their movement was ordinary human behavior and existence.
Finally, literature is similar to philosophy in that it seeks to explain and understand human behavior and therefore rooted in the commonplace. Nevertheless, its relative strength over philosophy is literature's ability to emotionally and spiritually move the reader through the use of contrived situations and fictional characters. It can do this when even the central theme of a piece maybe love between a man and a woman (e.g.commonplace). Literature also distinguishes itself from philosophy in that the breadth of the fiction may be huge. The plot and the detail can be quite ordinary or fanatastic. However, this does not mean that the central themes of all literature, whether ordinary or fantastic, deal with human beings and the problems they find in the world, something which we all share.
In conclusion, I hope it has been shown that a passionate desire to understand and explain human behavior, the significance of our existence and deal constructively with the challanges of life are the centerpieces of at least in two of the most influential areas in human thought. What is more commonplace than the existence of man.
COMMENTARY
This essay sustains a well-focused and insightful analysis of the issue. Beginning with the observation that the greatest thinkers "live lives in time," the writer reasons that the great thinkers develop their ideas through observation of common occurrences and everyday reality. One of the strengths of this essay is the way in which it thoughtfully considers the opposing claim: that great thinkers are primarily the product of fine education, and that, being "well schooled in the classics," they are far removed from everyday life. The writer notes that, while it "may be a benefit to study classics," it is nevertheless true that being "well schooled in diverse disciplines" will simply "refine and hone an ability to study human nature" in its everyday manifestations. This observation is indicative of the writer's sophisticated grasp of the complexities of the issue.
The writer goes on to demonstrate the intellectual "power of the commonplace" by skillfully developing two compelling examples from academic life: philosophy and literature. Aristotle is cited as a philosopher who studied the "more mundane motions of daily life." Similarly, the writer explains, twentieth-century existentialists, in attempting to understand man's relation to the universe, found inspiration in the commonplace.
Another strength in this essay is the way it introduces an idea and then builds on that idea as the argument unfolds. For instance, in a discussion of the existentialists in the second paragraph, the writer expands on an earlier point about "thinkers" in general: the existentialists may have "exploited their uncommon education and intellect," but the "basis for their movement was ordinary human behavior and existence." It is logical connections such as these that make for a coherent and well-focused discussion.
The writer uses language fluently and controls sophisticated syntax throughout the essay: "I would argue that although it may be a benefit to study classics and be well schooled in diverse disciplines, these pursuits merely refine and hone an ability each and every person has, the ability to study human nature."
This is not a flawless paper: word choice, for example, is not always precise. But the essay's cogent analysis, effective organization, and sophisticated sentence structure merit a solid score of 6.
GRE写作：怎样培养模仿能力相关文章：