GRE写作常见易错扣分问题
在GRE写作考试中，考生经常会犯下一些错误，这些错误其实都比较普遍，但如果考生不够重视忽略这些错误问题，可能就会对作文得分造成负面影响。下面小编就和大家分享从 GRE写作常见易错扣分问题盘点分析，希望能够帮助到大家，来欣赏一下吧。
GRE写作常见易错扣分问题盘点分析
GRE写作常见扣分问题：逻辑不清
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?
GRE写作常见扣分问题：结构混乱
和结论什么关系?要记住一点，GRE作文文章是一个整体，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。
GRE写作常见扣分问题：观点模糊
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，但实际上这种GRE作文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。
GRE写作常见扣分问题：内容空泛
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GRE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。
GRE写作常见扣分问题：论证不实
记住你的举例一定要死死扣住你的GRE作文观点，不要是和观点打擦边球的。
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。
GRE写作高分范文：批判性思维
GRE写作范文：
Too much time, money, and energy are spent developing new and more elaborate technology. Society should instead focus on maximizing the use of existing technology for the immediate benefit of its citizens.
I must say that I reject this statement. While it is true that we need to support society as much as possible with current technology, that does not in any way mean that we should stop progressing simply because our current technology cannot handle all the problems we have brought to it. Does that mean that we should simply accept the status quo and make do? No, I don’t think so. To do so would be tantamount to adopting a fatalistic approach; I think most people would reject that.
Technology has helped, and it has hurt. Without it, we would never have our standard of living, nor quality of nutrition, expectation of a long and productive life span, and the unshakable belief that our lives can be made even better. But it has also brought us universal pollution, weapons so powerful as to be capable of rendering us extinct, and the consequent fear for our survival as species and as a planet. Technology is indeed a double-edged sword. And yet, I still have to argue in its favor, because without it, we have no hope.
Some might argue that we would be better off without technology. They might say that a return to a less technologically driven approach to life would have the benefits of reducing stress and allowing us to live simpler, happier lives, like those of our forebears. Such an idea is seductive, so much so that much of art and all of nostalgia are devoted to it. But upon closer inspection, one realizes that such a move would only return us to a life of different kinds of stress, one of false simplicity, one fraught with danger. It would be a life
without antibiotics where a minor cut could prove deadly. It would be a life where childbirth is the main killer of women, and where an emergency is dealt with in terms of hours and days instead of minutes and hours; a life where there are no phones or cars or planes or central heating, no proven drug therapies to treat mental illness, no computers. Would this world really make people happy?
What we already have, we have. And since the only way to move is forward, instead of allowing ourselves to be paralyzed by fear and worry, we need to learn how to clean up the pollution we have caused, and how to deal with a world that feeds on weapons and mass destruction. Doing these things means having to move away from technology into a more difficult realm, that of diplomacy and compromise: to move from the bully stance of “I am bigger and better and I have more toys and so I win” to a place where everyone wins.
Technology is the thing that will allow people to do that. But, advanced as it is, it is still in its infancy. We have to allow it to grow up and mature in order to reap the real rewards that it can bring. And there are even greater rewards ahead of us than what the world has already experienced. When technology is pushed to the outer edge, that is where serendipitous discoveries can occur. This has been seen throughout technological advancement, but the easiest example is probably the space program which made us think, really hard, about how to do things in a different environment. It gave us telecommunications, new fabrics and international cooperation. Paramedical devices, so that people can be treated even as they are being transported to the hosptal, are a direct development of that technology. None of this would have happened in the time frame that it did if we had not pushed for technological advancement. If we had decided to
第二段：
(概述科技的两面性)Technology has helped, and it has hurt. (具体讨论科技的贡献)Without it, we would never have our standard of living, nor quality of nutrition, expectation of a long and productive life span, and the unshakable belief that our lives can be made even better. (具体讨论科技的危害)But it has also brought us universal pollution, weapons so powerful as to be capable of rendering us extinct, and the consequent fear for our survival as species and as a planet. Technology is indeed a double-edged sword. (表明已考虑到科技的危害，但是依然坚持自己立场)And yet, I still have to argue in its favor, because without it, we have no hope.
第三段：
(提出反方的立场)Some might argue that we would be better off without technology. They might say that a return to a less technologically driven approach to life would have the benefits of reducing stress and allowing us to live simpler, happier lives, like those of our forebears. Such an idea is seductive, so much so that much of art and all of nostalgia are devoted to it. (通过具体论据反驳反方的观点)But upon closer inspection, one realizes that such a move would only return us to a life of different kinds of stress, one of false simplicity, one fraught with danger. It would be a life without antibiotics where a minor cut could prove deadly. It would be a life where childbirth is the main killer of women, and where an emergency is dealt with in terms of hours and days instead of minutes and hours; a life where there are no phones or cars or planes or central heating, no proven drug therapies to treat mental illness, no computers. Would this world really make people happy?
第四段：
(在第三段驳论的基础上进一步立论)What we already have, we have. And since the only way to move is forward, instead of allowing ourselves to be paralyzed by fear and worry, we need to learn how to clean up the pollution we have caused, and how to deal with a world that feeds on weapons and mass destruction. Doing these things means having to move away from technology into a more difficult realm, that of diplomacy and compromise: to move from the bully stance of “I am bigger and better and I have more toys and so I win” to a place where everyone wins.
第五段：
Technology is the thing that will allow people to do that. (指出支持观点存在的一点不足)But, advanced as it is, it is still in its infancy. (解决方案)We have to allow it to grow up and mature in order to reap the real rewards that it can bring. And there are even greater rewards ahead of us than what the world has already experienced. When technology is pushed to the outer edge, that is where serendipitous discoveries can occur. This has been seen throughout technological advancement, but the easiest example is probably the space program which made us think, really hard, about how to do things in a different environment. It gave us telecommunications, new fabrics and international cooperation. Paramedical devices, so that people can be treated even as they are being transported to the hospital, are a direct development of that technology. None of this would have happened in the time frame that it did if we had not pushed for technological advancement. If we had decided to “focus on maximizing the use of existing technology” instead of foolishly reaching for the stars, we would not have made those discoveries which now are the bedrock of the 21st century.
gre满分作文重点：Critical Thinking.当然，提高critical thinking能力的同时，也很有必要包装语言。
GRE写作：短期内怎样提高
Argument句型
开头
In this analysis, the arguer claims that …should …To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the example of …where …In addition, the arguer assumes that …This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.
正文：
For instance …since …what’s more …etc.
and how well it represented the public opinions..
The sample of the survey is not representative.
(样本太小)
the sample is too small to...
(光数字没比例)
the ratio of four to six
there is only figures but no proportion of the survey 还是ratio?
Insufficient Sample
If the [respondents] only stand for a tiny proportion of the whole [group], we should not be so sure about the conclusion that [the whole group…]
The arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization.
It was only carried out in Sun City, but the arguer applies its result to all the company’s markets while doesn’t show us whether Sun City is a representative market of the whole markets.
有的病人会对抗生素过敏
the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if the maintenance of the airline has been improved as a result of sending its mechanics to the Seminar, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that就算怎样，也不怎样
The survey is based on two isolated examples. The arguer should survey more hospitals of both types.
循环假设
The arguer commits a fallacy of begging the question in assuming that …
结尾：
other possible causes of the …
To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands.
GRE相关文章：
★ 学习资料库