GRE写作评分标准及分数权重细节解读
很多考生对于新GRE写作两个部分的计分方式不是十分了解，因此在备考中也很容易搞错学习重点，缺乏足够的针对性。下面小编就和大家分享GRE写作评分标准及ISSUE/ARGUMENT分数权重细节解读，来欣赏一下吧。
GRE写作评分标准及ISSUE/ARGUMENT分数权重细节解读
GRE写作算分基本公式介绍
新GRE写作要求考生在30分钟+30分钟内分别完成两篇文章，它是美国所有作文考试中时间最长而质量要求最高的一类作文考试。GRE写作的记分方式是这样的，两篇作文总分都是六分，计算公式为你的得分=(Issue的得分+Argument的得分)/2，最终的计分是以0.5分为一个格。
GRE写作不同题型要求简介
1. Issue task (30min)，要求作者根据所给题目，完成一篇表明立场的逻辑立论文。
2. Argument task (30min)，要求考生分析所给题目，完成一篇驳论文，指出并且有力的驳斥题目中的主要逻辑错误。
GRE作文两篇文章分数权重分析
首先GRE写作两个部分在总分中的权重是一样的。新GRE作文中有两个项目，最后出的GRE作文分数是一个，所以如何进行GRE作文算分呢?由于AA的写作不牵涉自己观点的展开，只须指出作者逻辑上的漏洞，因此在经过训练以后，写起来并不困难;而AI的写作需要自己展开自己设立的观点，不但需要逻辑上的洞察能力，还需要论证观点的能力，语言组织的能力，因此对于中国考生来讲比较困难，难以短期内有较大提高。
但是这两个部分在总分中的权重是一样的，因此考生的策略应该是尽量提高AI部分的写作能力而力保AA部分满分(或高分)。因为如果AA部分满分的话，AI部分只需争取在4分以上就可以保证整体作文分数在5分以上。
ETS写作评分标准概述
参照ETS评过分的范文，我们不难发现：无论是ISSUE还是ARGUMENT在评分标准上都有共同之处。
1. 观点要有深度，论证要有说服力;
2. 组织要有条理，表达清晰准确;
3. 语言流利，句式复杂，词汇丰富。
这三条分别说的是行文的“思想性”、“结构性”和“表达性”，众多高分作文的考生大凡都在这三个方面做得很好，我们理所当然也要从这里入手，采取“各个击破”的方法解剖GRE作文的本质，从而得到一个理想分数。
GRE写作范文
"Wisdom is rightfully attributed not to people who know what to look for in life but to people who know what to overlook."
Everyone can agree with this issue or not. I think everyone can have arguments to support it and arguments to not support it. It's one of that issue that is not true for everyone. I think if you know what to look for in your life maybe all your efforts can be very concentrated on certain things with the result of obtain what you planned to have in your life, with the result of being satisfied more than people who ask themselves any kind of questions prior to doing anything or prior to think about anything. These factors summarize to display truth about the issue and the discussion. People can disagree if they choose it. Now the question is wisdom belongs to those who know what to look for or to those who know what to overlook and in this behavior they can touch or stop the widom of other people?
Comments:
This response presents a fundamentally deficient discussion of the issue.
The first portion of the response, while referring to "this issue," never clearly identifies the issue and, instead, contains statements that could be attributed to any number of topics. As such, there is little evidence of the ability to organize and develop a coherent analysis of the stated claim. The final statement essentially rephrases the topic as a question and seems to try to interpret its meaning, but -- without an explanation -- the ending merely adds to the overall confusion.
The severe and persistent errors in language and sentence structure add to the overall incoherence and the score of 1.
GRE写作满分范文
The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.
"Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."
The author's argument is weak. Though he believes Scott Woods benefits the community as an undeveloped park, he also thinks a school should be built on it. Obviously the author is not aware of the development that comes with building a school besides the facilities devoted to learning or sports. He does not realize that parking lots will take up a substantial area of property, especially if the school proposed is a high school. We are not given this information, nor the size of the student body that will be attending, nor the population of the city itself, so it is unclear whether the damage will be great or marginal. For a better argument, the author should consider questions like what sort of natural resources are present on the land that will not remain once the school is built? Are there endangered species whose homes will be lost? And what about digging up the land for water lines? It is doubtful whether the integrity of Scott Woods as natural parkland can be maintained once the land has been developed. It is true that a school would probably not cause as much damage as a shopping center or housing development, but the author must consider whether the costs incurred in losing the park-like aspects of the property are worth developing it, when there could be another, more suitable site. He should also consider how the city will pay for the property, whether taxes will be raised to compensate for the expense or whether a shopping center will be built somewhere else to raise funds. He has not given any strong reasons for the idea of building a school, including what kind of land the property is, whether it is swampland that will have to be drained or an arid, scrubby lot that will need extensive maintenance to keep up the athletic greens. The author should also consider the opposition, such as the people without children who have no interest in more athletic fields. He must do a better job of presenting his case, addressing each point named above, for if the land is as much a popular community resource as he implies, he will face a tough time gaining allies to change a park to a school.
Comments:
After describing the argument as "weak," this strong response goes straight to the heart of the matter: building a school is not (as the argument seems to assume) innocuous; rather, it involves substantial development. The essay identifies several reasons to support this critique. The writer then points to the important questions that must be answered before accepting the proposal. These address
-- the costs versus the benefits of developing Scott Woods
-- the impact of development on Scott Woods
-- the possibility of "another, more suitable site"
The generally thoughtful analysis notes still more flaws in the argument:
-- whether the school is necessary
-- whether the selected site is appropriate
-- whether some groups might oppose the plan
Although detailed and comprehensive, the writer's critique is neither as fully developed nor as tightly organized as required for a 6 essay. The response exhibits good control of language, although there is some awkward phrasing (e.g., ".??爂aining allies to change a park to a school"). Overall, this essay warrants a score of 5 because it is well developed, clearly organized, and shows facility with language.
GRE写作相关文章：
GRE写作评分标准及分数权重细节解读
