GRE寫作高分需要避免哪些問題

千里之行，始于第2頁/共2頁精品文檔推薦GRE寫作高分需要避免哪些問題GRE寫作高分需要避開哪些問題,我們一起來看看吧，下面我就和大家共享，來觀賞一下吧。

GRE寫作高分需要避開哪些問題

新GRE寫作要避開的幾點：

.避開觀點重復;不要講了幾遍其實都是一個理由。當你一點就能說明的時候，非要講三遍就顯的有點STUPID了。你要從多個方面來講道理，而且要盡量把問題詳細化。

.避開觀點的庸俗化，并考慮US人能否接受的問題。比如說要避開對任何宗教詞批判太多。由于你永久搞不懂給你判分的是信什么教的。不能批判任何政治抱負。不能貶低自己所在的國家。US人最厭煩不愛自己國家的人。避開觀點的庸俗化，就是我們說的有些東西可以想，但是不能寫出來GRE考斯作文規(guī)律思路分為兩種。一種是問題發(fā)揮型，一種是argument/爭辯型。

對于問題發(fā)揮型題目，你怎么發(fā)揮，怎么犯規(guī)律錯誤都沒有問題，只要你能保證你觀點的正確，并能用詳細的事實證明你的觀點。而對于argument/爭辯型題目就不同了。它的出題方式是給你一段話，這段話后再給出一個總結。然后讓你挑出它的規(guī)律錯誤。需要你作的是.它的結論或者對其加以補充。你只要拿出三點理由把它.就行了。這三點理由從哪里找呢，從文章里面找，從文章的周邊關系找，從文章的背后找。

下面舉一個例子：現(xiàn)在有一種計算機儀表設備，把它安在商用飛機上之后就必定能避開飛機在空中的碰撞。由于一架飛機發(fā)出碰撞信號后，另一架飛機就能接收這個信號并準時實行行動，從而避開飛機碰撞。

這里結論就是飛機必定能避開碰撞。你要做的就是.這個結論。它的因果關系是由于安裝了儀表所以能夠避開碰撞。你要說的是安裝了儀表不肯定能避開碰撞。現(xiàn)在你就要找出3點理由來。

1.文章中沒有任何統(tǒng)計數(shù)據告知我們飛機的碰撞百分之百是商用飛機，因此假如避開碰撞，就要在全部飛行物上安裝這種儀表。

2.安裝了儀表后，是否需要人來操作。假如是，那么由于有人的緣由，就不能避開碰撞。

3.要是這個儀表系統(tǒng)壞了。

4.也沒有談到氣候問題，衛(wèi)星干擾問題等干擾因素……

所以Argument文章不需要你有文采，也不需要你有多么好的句子結構，它只是要求你的規(guī)律沒有漏洞。

大家有時間的話務必把AI的提綱都列掉，然后挑重復率高的寫。比如ISSUE里面有一道TheGREatestindicatorofanation...。另外有一點很重要的是，特殊是對于A大家在寫完幾篇文章以后，盡快歸納出針對每一個instruction的模板，question這種可以寫成一類，然后背出來。其實老G和新G的區(qū)分就在于，老G是一套模板走天下，新G預備4個模板，就這么簡潔。以后自己聯(lián)系的時候，就依據模板來套，寫到后來你會發(fā)覺，你寫出來的文章，不管題目怎么換，寫出來的東西看起來都一樣，這樣Argument算基本練成了。模板最好自己寫，依據頭幾篇寫的文章來歸納。比如說我關于specificevidence這種題型，自己歸納的模板。

Theargumentiswellpresentedandappearstoberelativelysoundatthefirstglance,theauthorconcludesthat__________.However,aclosescrutinyabouttheargumentwillrevealthatseveralspecificevidencesshouldbeaddedinordertomaketheargumenttobemorecogentandconvincing,forexample:_________

Initially,theauthormustgiveevidencethat_________.Ifweweretolearnthat_______,itwouldobviouslyweakentheconclusion.Itmayturnouttobethat_____.Tomakehisassuranceeloquent,hemustprovidemorespecificevidencestoconsummatehisargument.

Secondly,inorderto______,weshouldalsobeinformedthat_______.Intheargument,theauthoronlysaidthat__________.Itmayunderminetheargumentthatif-_______.Withoutknowing_______,wecanhardlyaccepttheconclusionthat______

Third,theauthorshouldeliminatethedisturbanceofotherfactors,forexample,heshouldprovideevidencesthat_______.Perhaps_____orperhaps________.Eitherofthesescenarios,iftrue,wouldcastseriousdoubtontheauthor’sclaim.Withoutaccountingforallotherexplanations,thearguercantreasonablyconcludethat___________;U%z$wU$r.fx1ze;Q+s

Tosumup,theargumentisfarfrompowerfulenoughtosubstantiatethat______________Beforeanyfinaldecisionsaremadeabout_____________,muchmorespecificevidencesaretobeputforwardtomaketheauthorsargumentmoreforcefulandcogent.

真正寫的時候，先把第一段和最終一段都寫了，然后每段寫個第一句，列出框架。最好能在第一段把你要寫的內容都先簡要概括一下：

話題還是回到預備A的過程上，當你歸納出模板以后，接下來要做的事情就很簡潔了，找到新老題庫的對應表，然后自己照著新題庫一題一題地把提綱列出來，不會的看一下老題是怎么寫的。這個時候不需要寫許多文章，只是歸納提綱就行，記住歸納的時候要把可能發(fā)生的狀況寫出來，由于到了考試的時候想不出可以rival的狀況那不是悲劇了，比如這個題中的一個evidence：

ThereasonwhystudentschooseBuckinghamCollege.

Perhapsithasqualifiedteachers.

Perhapstuitionfeeislowerthancollegesatthesamelevel.

等你把這兩件事情都做完，A的預備就差不多了，以后就是每天花半個小時左右的時間一遍遍熟識題庫。

根據這種方法，我真正預備A的時間只有5天，后來的那段時間都只是每天花半個小時寫3篇作文的提綱寫的話不用太多，3-4天寫一篇保持手感就行了。

關于ISSUE，方法也差不多，主要的問題就是寫提綱肯定要認真，把你對這個問題的觀點，和引用的例子都寫出來，不要想著自己能套一些Roosevelt,King什么的，想想就可以了，沒有那么多例子讓你套，還是要老狡猾實預備提綱。我寫過一套完整的issue和argument的提綱，寫的時候例子也放在提綱里，ISSUE跟A也一樣，寫完一遍提綱，自己重新看，到最終就是訓練自己看到一個題，在2分鐘以內快速組織出一個比較具體的提綱。這樣ISSUE的預備也就差不多了。

GREissue寫作優(yōu)秀實例：意見同與不同

issue1題目：

Wecanusuallylearnmuchmorefrompeoplewhoseviewswesharethanfrompeoplewhoseviewscontradictourown;disagreementcancausestressandinhibitlearning.

通常，我們從與我們意見相同的人身上學到的要比從那些與我們意見相悖的人身上學的東西要多得多;(由于)意見不統(tǒng)一會帶來壓力并且阻礙學習。

正文：

Frompeoplewhoseviewswesharewegetconfidence,encouragement,andpsychologicalsatisfaction;frompeoplewhoseviewscontradictourownwegetnewangles,freshperspectives,andpertinentadvices.Butexcessiveagreementswouldleadustothemorassofself-complacence;andextremecontradictionswouldweakenourdeterminationoflearning.Thusweshouldfullyrecognizethepotentialdangeroflimitingourvisioninoneofthetwosides.Andonlythroughtheapproachofpayingequalattentiontobothsidescouldwemakefurtherachievementsintheprocessoflearning.

Viewsandideasfrompeopleagreewithusmayraiseourconfidence,strengthenourcourage,andenhanceourpsychologicalsatisfaction.Accordingtocommonsenseandoureverydayexperience,thepropensitytoaccepttheideasfrompeoplewhoagreewithusratherthantheopinionsfrompeopledisagreewithusassociatesstronglywiththenatureofhumanbeings,forwearesocialanimalsanditistheinnerinstinctofustoseekforapprovalofothers.Imagine,whatwouldyoureactiftheworkaccomplishedbyyourarduouseffortsreceivesfiercecriticismornotevenaglance?Youwouldloseyourstrengthtomarchinthelongroadoflearning.

Onthecontrary,agreementsmaycausethefeelingofbeingacceptedandconsented,thuswegainthepsychologicalsatisfactionwhichwillimpulseustolearnmore.Moreover,customarily,wetendtoimitateandshareideasandbehaviorsfromourparents,friends,classmatesandsoforth,whoareinthesamegroupofours.Bythiswayweformknowledgeofourown.Notunderallcircumstanceswecanlearnfrompeoplewhoseviewsweshare.Onlybaseonthepremisesthatalltheviewsofourassentersareauthenticandsincere,however,couldwelearnusefulknowledgefromthem.Onconditionthatpeopleconsentandevenflatterusforcertainpurposeswhichhavenothingtodowithlearning,ourlearningwouldbehinderedinsteadofmotivated.Wewouldbepossessedintheillusiveprideandlimitedinanarrowboundofvision.Consequently,wecanseethatthespeaker’sassertionisincompleteandoversimplified.

Contradictingviewsandideascouldawareusofthemistakesandflawsinourworkwhichwecannotdiscoverbyourselves,bringusfreshanglesandperspectives,andthenmakeourworkmatureandcomplete.Therebythroughthediscussionandcompetitionbothweandthepeopledisagreewithuscouldmakeadvancementsinourlearning.Debateonthesamesubjectmakeitpossibleforhumanbeingstomakemostoftheachievementsandadvancesonfieldsofscience,technology,philosophyandthelike.Ifweseeonlyontheonesideofthecoin,wecouldgetonlyapartialanddistortedknowledgeandviewwhichmightmisleadourlearning.

Also,contradictionmaycausenegativeeffectsundercertainconditions,especiallywhenthedebatebecomesirrationaldenouncementorpersonalattack.Thenourconfidencewouldbeimpairedbythecriticismsandourlearninginhibitedbythestressexcessivecontradictionsbringsus.Disagreementswouldbedetrimentalratherthanbeneficialtoourlearningunderthiscircumstance.

Biasoneachofthetwosidesisdetrimentaltoourlearningforthatagreementsanddisagreementsformaorganicentitywhichcannotbeabsolutelydivided.Overrelianceononesideisblindandunwise.Agreementsbaseonnoevidenceareactuallyflatters;disagreementswithoutrationalreasonsarereprimands.Wewouldbeenmeshedinthewebofself-contentionsewedbyourselvesandcouldnotgoaheadifweandblindedbytheflatters;wewouldbefrozeninthechillynightofdarknesscreatedbyreprimandsandbecamehelplessandhopeless.Wemustpayequalattentionsonbothsidestoseethewholepicture.

Tosumup,ideasofpeoplewhoseviewsweshareandpeoplewhoseviewscontradictourownplaytheirrespectiveroleinourlearning,andnoneofthemshouldbeneglected.Therefore,balancebetweenbothsidesisneeded.Andonlythroughthiswaycouldweachievethefurthergoalinourprocessoflearning.

GREissue寫作優(yōu)秀實例：審查的公正性

題目：

Censorshipisrarely,ifever,justified.

審查很少能夠做到公正。

正文：

“Censorship”isawordwhichseemstobeauthoritativeratherthandemocratic,whichimpliesthewillofthegovernorsratherthanthewillofgeneralpeople.Sincetheoccurrenceofthecensorship,whichcouldbetracedbacktotheAncientRome,ithasbeenplayinganimportantpartinthedomesticaffairswhilearousingapplauseandcondemnationaswell.Heretheourgovernmentfacesadilemma,isitfairtocarryonthecensorshipatthecostofsacrificingpartofdemocracy,orjustopenthegatelettingflowsofideasandthoughtsin,attheriskoflosingitsownrampart.

Sincecensorshipsuggestanactofchangingorsuppressingspeech,writingoranyotherformsofexpressionthatiscondemnedassubversiveofthecommongood,itmusthaveacloserelationshipwiththeonewhoappliessuchsupervision,andtheword“commongood”shouldberedefinedunderdifferentconditions.Thereistimewhenwewereallunderapowerfulmonarchy,andthe“commongood”isthe“monarchgood”,thenthecensorshipitselfistheinstrumentofthemonarchwhichsolelydependedonthewillofthemonarch;intheMiddleAges,boththeRomanCatholicandtheProtestantChurchespracticedcensorshipthatseemedtobeoppressivetoanyideaschallengingthedoctrinesofchurchesandtheexistenceofGod;evennow,insomeauthoritativecountries,thecensorshipisusedtoruleitspeoplebyrestrictingtheirminds,ofcourse,forthestabilityoftheirgoverningoverthepeople.Withtheseregards,censorshipitselfisquestionedattherationalityofexisting,regardlessofthepracticesmadebythedemocraticgovernment,whilethejusticeofthedemocraticgovernmentisquitedoubtable.

Thematterconcerningisnotonlywhopracticesthecensorshipbutalsohowitispracticed.Sincedifferentmenmakedifferentcommentsonthesameworkofart,forexample,itishardtosetupameasurebywhichwecoulddecidewhetheroneshouldbeprohibited,especiallytoth