GRE寫作保證穩(wěn)定得分請先了解這些常見易錯原因

GRE寫作保證穩(wěn)定得分請先了解這些常見易錯原因,快來看看吧，下面小編就和大家分享，來欣賞一下吧。

GRE寫作保證穩(wěn)定得分請先了解這些常見易錯原因

GRE寫作易錯扣分問題：整體邏輯

大體上來說，同學們的邏輯問題是最多的。邏輯問題有三種，通篇邏輯，段落之間，段落之中。其實這可能和我們高中初中的英語教育有關系，大家都很喜歡一條一條擺原因。Firstly, secondly...然后后面至于這個ly后面是什么就不管了，一頓胡扯。也不管這段落與段落之間的銜接是否自然，反正都有什么ly給打頭陣。

事實上，中西方的思維總是存在差異，很多時候考官都不懂考生在說什么?？脊俸芾Щ?，這個例子和這個有關系嗎?為什么前面在說A，后面突然B了?和結論什么關系?要記住一點，GRE作文文章是一個整體，你的開篇結尾和中部內容都是應該有關聯(lián)的。也就是說，在開頭提到的，文中應該有展開，同時在結尾有總結。中文里不也要求行文流暢么，所以GRE作文想要保分，至少要保證文章的整體邏輯是通順的。

GRE寫作易錯扣分問題：觀點選擇

很多同學都很喜歡寫中立觀點“A不錯，但不夠好”，這雖然看起來很客觀，但實際上這種GRE作文對邏輯的要求非常高，要怎樣去組織語言，組織相應的論據(jù)論點，非?？简炄恕Ｓ型瑢W想說A事件要瑕疵互見，但是寫著寫著就亂七八糟，東一塊西一塊，不知道在講點什么了。更有厲害的索性冗長的寫了許多，結果卻講了空話。所以小編建議剛上手的同學，寫ISSUE的時候還是選擇一邊倒，站定腳跟不放松。即便是真的要寫中立觀點，實際上也要表現(xiàn)出在A和B之間的偏好。

GRE寫作易錯扣分問題：內容空洞

現(xiàn)在很多考生練GRE寫作的時候都會先寫提綱，這種做法本身是挺好的，但有些同學只寫一個觀點，然后后面的例子亂用，或者根本沒有弄清楚什么是例子。事實上，這種展開，可以是實例，也可以是虛擬的假設。實例中往往分自己的經(jīng)驗和他人的經(jīng)驗。那么怎樣的例子有說服力呢?記住你的舉例一定要死死扣住你的GRE作文觀點，不要是和觀點打擦邊球的。比如小編之前看到過的一篇GRE作文，大觀點是電腦對學生來說是有益的，小觀點是可以查到很多資料，然后例子是可以用google查到很多資料，很快捷。這樣的寫法乍一看沒有問題，但實際上問題大了，用goole查到很多資料，是因為電腦還是internet?這很容易就偏題了，變成internet 對學生來說是有益的。例子一定要從論點出發(fā)，再回到論點。不要將你的論點發(fā)散，否則后果很可能就是越寫越跑題。所以小編建議大家每次寫好一篇文章，都檢查一下論據(jù)里的key words是不是和論點里的key words 一樣，論點里的key words又是不是和題目里的key words一樣。你的key words 可以比大題里的key words更加narrow，但是千萬不要更加廣泛。

GRE寫作易錯扣分問題：段落連接

段落之間的連接出問題也是比較容易導致作文扣分的因素之一。會出現(xiàn)這種錯誤一般都是因為大家對連接詞的運用存在問題。比如However, thus, therefore之類的詞匯其實很重要，因為他們決定了上下文之間的關系。而許多同學用錯了連接詞，就會讓文章讀起來很奇怪，比如上下兩段之間完全不是轉折的關系，考生卻用了however，這就會讓人覺得有些奇怪了。有些同學干脆就是上下文之間完全沒有邏輯聯(lián)系，然后強行把兩個單句湊在了一起?？偠灾?，一篇文章無論是段落內的上下句，還是兩個鄰接的段落之間，都是需要有連接詞來體現(xiàn)其邏輯關系的。考生想要取得GRE寫作滿分則一定要注意在這方面盡可能做好。

新GRE Issue寫作范文透析

Topic

The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine："The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California confirm my conclusion. In 1915 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 1992 there were only four species of amphibians observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. The decline in Yosemite has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1920 (trout are known to eat amphibian eggs). But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline."

Sample Essay

In this argument, the writer of the letter concludes that global pollution of water and air has caused a decline in the number of amphibians worldwide. To support his or her conclusion, the writer cites the results of two studies, seventy-five years apart, that purportedly show that the number of amphibians in one park in California, Yosemite National Park, have drastically declined. Additionally, the writer casts aside a given reason for the decline, stating that the introduction of trout to the park (who are known to eat amphibian eggs) does not explain the worldwide decline in the number of amphibians. This argument defies simple logic and suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the argument is based on only two studies in one specific part of the world, Yosemite National Park in California. It is impossible to pinpoint a worldwide theory for the decline of amphibians based on any number of studies in only one specific location in the world - the specific varieties of amphibians, geographical conditions and other location specific variables prohibit such a sweeping generalization. One very specific location cannot be used as a model for all other locations, even within one particular country, let alone the entire world. The writer provides no evidenced whatsoever that links the Yosemite study with any purported effects anywhere else in the global environment.

Secondly, the two separate studies were done seventy-five years apart. There is no evidence that the two studies were conducted in a similar manner over the same duration of time or even over the same exact areas of Yosemite National Park, or that the exact same study methods were used. For example, perhaps the first study lasted over an entire year and was conducted by twenty-five experts in amphibious biology, resulting in the finding of seven species of amphibians in abundant numbers. By contrast, perhaps the second study was conducted over a period of one week by a lone high school student as a school science project. The writer offers no basis on which to compare the two studies, leaving it open as to whether the two are truly comparable in their breadth, scope and expertise.

Finally, the writer notes that the decline in the amphibian population has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters in 1920, but then dismisses that argument on the purely specious basis that it does not explain the worldwide decline. This part of the argument blithely dismisses the very relevant fact that trout are known to eat amphibian eggs. This attempt to "prove a negative" is the last resort of those in search of some vain attempt to prove the truth of the matter that they are asserting. It is basically impossible to "prove a negative"; this is an attempt to shift the burden of proof back on to the nonbelievers of the argument. The global environmental situation and that of Yosemite National Park are not perfectly correlated, and the fact that the trout may very well be responsible for the decline cannot simply be dismissed without further proof.

In summary, the writer fails to establish any causal relationship between global air and water pollution and the decline of amphibious life worldwide. The evidence presented is extremely weak at best and narrowly focuses on one tiny area of the globe, as well as putting forward as proof two studies about which almost nothing is known. For a stronger argument, the writer would need to directly put forth evidence associating air and water pollution with not only the decline at Yosemite but also throughout other areas of the world.(599 words)

[題目]

下述文字摘自一封致某環(huán)保雜志編輯的信函：全球兩棲動物數(shù)量的減少明顯標志著全球性水與大氣的污染。對加利福尼亞州約塞米蒂國家公園內兩棲動物所作的兩項研究可證實我的這一結論。1915年公園內有七個物種的兩棲動物，每一物種都擁有豐富的種群數(shù)量。然而，1992年，在公園內所能觀察到的兩棲動物物種僅為四類，且每一物種的種群數(shù)量已驟然下降。約塞米蒂公園動物數(shù)量減少被歸咎于始于1920年的將鮭魚引入公園水域的做法(眾所周知，鮭魚喜食兩棲動物所產的卵)。但鮭魚的引入不可能成為約塞米蒂公園動物數(shù)量減少的真正原因，因為它無法來解釋全球范圍內的動物數(shù)量減少。

[范文正文]

在本項論述中，信函作者的結論是，全球性水與大氣污染已致使世界范圍內兩棲動物的數(shù)量減少。為了支持其論點，作者援引了兩份時隔75年之久的研究結果，這兩份結果據(jù)稱可證明加利福尼亞州某一公園――即約塞米蒂國家公園――內兩棲動物的數(shù)量銳減。此外，該作者撇開了動物數(shù)量減少的一個已知原因，陳述道，將鮭魚引入公園(據(jù)稱，鮭魚喜食兩棲動物所產的卵)這一做法不足以解釋世界范圍內兩棲動物數(shù)量上的減少。這一論點有悖于簡單的邏輯，犯有一系列關鍵性的邏輯謬誤。

首先，該論點所依據(jù)的僅僅是世界上某一特定地點――即加利福尼亞州約塞米蒂國家公園――內的兩份研究。圍繞著兩棲動物數(shù)量減少這一問題，如果僅以世界上一個特定的地點為樣品，再多數(shù)量的研究也無法得出一種精確的、適用于全世界的理論。兩棲動物的具體種類、地理狀況以及其他因地點而特異的變數(shù)均不允許我們作出如此一概而論的總括。一個非常具體的地點不能用作一個代表所有其他地點的模型，即使在一個特定的國家內也不行，更不用說在整個世界范圍內了。信函作者沒有提供任何證據(jù)將約塞米蒂公園的研究與全球環(huán)境中任何其他一處地方的任何所宣稱的效果聯(lián)系起來。 其次，所提及的那兩項互為獨立的研究時隔75年之久。沒有證據(jù)可證明這兩項研究是在相同的時間跨度內以相似的方式進行的，或是在約塞米蒂公園完全相同的地點進行的，或所使用的研究方法絕然相同。

例如，第一項研究可能持續(xù)了整整一年之久，且是由兩棲動物生物學領域的二十五位專家共同進行的。結果是發(fā)現(xiàn)了七大種類數(shù)目眾多的兩棲動物。相反，第二項研究可能是一位高中生孤身一人所做的學校的一個科學課題，僅為期一個星期。信函作者沒有提供將此兩項研究進行比較的基礎，從而使兩項研究在其廣度、范圍以及專業(yè)水準方面的可比性不得而知。 最后，信函作者指出，兩棲動物種群數(shù)量的減少，已被人歸咎于1920年將鮭魚引入公園水域這一做法，但緊接著又以該論據(jù)無法解釋世界范圍內動物數(shù)量減少這一似是而非的依據(jù)將該論據(jù)予以否認。信函作者論述中的這一部分漫不經(jīng)心地將一個極為相關的事實棄置不顧，即眾所周知，鮭魚喜食兩棲動物所產的卵。這種"prove a negative "的嘗試往往是這樣一類人所慣用的最后伎倆，他們竭力尋找某種徒勞的嘗試，力圖去證明他們所宣稱的事物的真理。從根本上講，"prove a negative"是不可能的。這樣一種做法是試圖將論證的負擔重新轉嫁給不相信該論據(jù)的人。全球的環(huán)境情形與約塞米蒂公園的情形并不絕然對應。鮭魚極有可能造成了兩棲動物數(shù)量減少這一事實在缺乏進一步證據(jù)的情況下是斷不能輕易予以否認的。

概括而言，信函作者沒能在全球空氣和水污染與世界范圍內兩棲生命數(shù)量減少之間建立起任何因果關系。該作者所拿出的證據(jù)充其量也是極為蒼白無力的，狹隘地將焦點集中在世界的一片極小的區(qū)域上，作為證據(jù)而援引的兩項研究幾乎不能說明任何問題。欲使其論點更具力度，信函作者尚需擺出直接的證據(jù)，將水和空氣污染不僅僅與約塞米蒂公園的兩棲動物數(shù)量減少聯(lián)系起來，而且也與世界其他地方的動物數(shù)量減少聯(lián)系起來。

寫作備考題庫范文：如何避免偏激

GRE作文題目：

Most people often look for similarities, even between very different things, and even when it it is unhelpful or harmful to do so. Instead, a thing should be considered on its own terms: we should avoid the tendency to compare it to something else.

人們總是在尋找相同點，即使是在非常不同的事物間也不例外，甚至有時候這樣做是無用乃至有害的。實際上，我們應該具體問題具體分析;我們應該盡量避免比較的傾向。

GRE寫作正文：

In the age of accelerating changes, the eagerness to understand things in an effective and equally efficient way is more than ever. Although all kinds of complex techniques, skills and equipments helpful for understanding and studying the objects are easily accessible to people, the basic strategies stay the same as before: one is starting from similarities and the other from distinction. From my personal point of view, only by using the two in proper proportion and order can one achieve his/her goal to understand a thing.

Looking for similarities is a proper starting point. When we first meet something new,we need to clarify its basic attributes, finding similarites with other familiar things and classify it according to those attributes. Classification according to similaties is of great assistance to provide us with an outline, basic knowledge which we can base further investigation upon. Although things in contemporary age represent themselves in various forms and styles, similarities exist in any pair as long as certain perspective can be found. For instance, Bookcase and window are so different that at first glance, one

may not be able to find the similarities, or even such an effort seems to be meaningless. Yet, they are both part of a house, something that must be taken into consideration when decorating or refurnishing the house. Such a comparison would be helpful for us to realize that “buy” and “sell” are two basic operation we can have upon window even though we have no idea what window is made of, how it is produced or what its function is.What’s more, looking for similarities not only refer to the object itself, but the relationship with others. Similar relationships helps people understand things in groups or pairs using the strategy: analogy. Analogy is especially useful when the charactertistics of a relationship rather than the objects themselves are the focus of understanding and when similar relationships are known and objects unknown. For example, if told that the relationship between window and ASVE is similar to that between book and read, one can safely guess that ASVE is the operation people can take on window although ASVE stays an unknown action.

Definitely, mere similarity usually exclude the distinctive characteristics of a thing. We need to investigate its own terms for deeper understanding. Within the rough outline sketched by similarity, a more detailed and well-articulated picture can be drawn by grasping own terms of a thing. Still take window as an example. From careful observation, we know that it is transparent, it consists of different chemical materials, it performs the function as to protect privacy, to preserve desirable temperature indoor, and sometimes to prevent rains and snows from going inside. Deeper and further understanding of window can only be gained when we take its own terms besides those it shares with bookcase into consideration.

In the newly development software engineering model named Object-oriented model,the strategy “similarity first and differences later” functions as the core and focus of the whole model. Objects sharing common points are put into same “classes” and common points are processed together, later they are defined, discussed and processed respectively according to their own characteristics. This method greatly reduces the repetive time and energy spent over and over again on similar, if not utterly same, terms. Translated into daily life, starting from similarites for a quick outline and transferring to grasp distinctive characteristics for deeper understanding isthe approach we should always bear in mind when hoping to understand a thing with effectiveness and efficiency.

GRE寫作保證穩(wěn)定得分請先了解這些常見易錯原因相關文章：