GRE寫作高效提分建議分享
GRE寫作高效提分建議分享 申請(qǐng)文科專業(yè)請(qǐng)關(guān)注作文成績(jī),,快來看看吧，下面小編就和大家分享，來欣賞一下吧。
GRE寫作高效提分建議分享 申請(qǐng)文科專業(yè)請(qǐng)關(guān)注作文成績(jī)
GRE作文分?jǐn)?shù)價(jià)值分析
許多人可能都覺得，作文獨(dú)立計(jì)分不算入總分，可能其分?jǐn)?shù)重要性并不是太高。這種想法其實(shí)是存在很大錯(cuò)誤的，原因主要有兩點(diǎn)：
1. 文科院?？粗谿RE作文成績(jī)
眾所周知，GRE考試作為一門研究生階段入學(xué)的綜合能力測(cè)試，其考試成績(jī)可以用來申請(qǐng)全美各大學(xué)校的大部分研究生專業(yè)和項(xiàng)目。理科項(xiàng)目一般不需要作文得分，更看重的是GRE總分和GRE數(shù)學(xué)部分的成績(jī)。而文科項(xiàng)目除了總分和語文部分成績(jī)外，對(duì)于作文也往往會(huì)提出專門的分?jǐn)?shù)要求，在這一點(diǎn)上越是優(yōu)秀的學(xué)校越是明顯。而假如考生想要申請(qǐng)的是排名靠前，在TOP20以內(nèi)的頂尖文科名校，那么GRE作文至少也需要考出4分以上的成績(jī)才能過關(guān)。根據(jù)官方發(fā)布的最新數(shù)據(jù)顯示，2016年中國(guó)考生的GRE作文平均成績(jī)僅為3分，因此大家想要獲得優(yōu)秀文科院校的青睞，就需要在作文方面獲得超過大部分考生的平均水準(zhǔn)的成績(jī)。
2. 作文成績(jī)是錄取重要參考指標(biāo)
同時(shí)，由于目前許多頂級(jí)名校的申請(qǐng)人數(shù)過多，招生官在初步篩選申請(qǐng)者時(shí)，往往會(huì)采取先根據(jù)GRE得分一刀切的方式，把一定分?jǐn)?shù)線以下的考生直接排除。而在剩下的考生中，哪怕你的GRE總分超過別人不少，但如果作文分?jǐn)?shù)偏低，那么你的被錄取可能性就會(huì)降低?？梢哉f，在GRE總分處于同一水平的情況下，考生GRE作文得分高低將成為衡量考生水平的重要參考指標(biāo)。
GRE寫作高效提分建議分享
因此，GRE考生如果申請(qǐng)的是文科類院校專業(yè)，那么作文成績(jī)就必須要進(jìn)行提升，而提分的具體要點(diǎn)可以歸納為以下四個(gè)方面：
1. 整體結(jié)構(gòu)
文章的整體結(jié)構(gòu)框架是一篇作文好壞的最重要標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。一般來說，一篇標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的GRE高分作文，按照開頭，結(jié)尾加上中間三個(gè)段落的五段式寫法是比較常見的。因此，考生對(duì)于一篇文章的寫作，至少要列出3個(gè)分論點(diǎn)，確保中間三段言之有物，同時(shí)開頭結(jié)尾也需要發(fā)揮出各自相應(yīng)的引導(dǎo)和總結(jié)作用。
2. 邏輯論證
GRE作文有兩篇，而無論是立論文ISSUE還是駁論文ARGUMENT，其本質(zhì)都屬于議論文，因此讓文章顯得有說服力就成為了關(guān)鍵所在。無論是讓自己的論點(diǎn)能夠站得住腳，還是讓對(duì)方的觀點(diǎn)顯得錯(cuò)誤百出，都需要考生通過邏輯論證來得以實(shí)現(xiàn)。因此，邏輯論證的合理性、對(duì)觀點(diǎn)挖掘的深度，以及分論點(diǎn)之間的的連貫性，都考生需要在寫作中體現(xiàn)出來以支撐邏輯論證。
3. 遣詞造句
一篇好作文自然離不開詞句上的運(yùn)用。合理正確沒有語法錯(cuò)誤只能算是達(dá)標(biāo)，想要讓GRE作文得到4分以上的評(píng)價(jià)，考生就需要在達(dá)標(biāo)以上進(jìn)一步進(jìn)行遣詞造句的優(yōu)化運(yùn)用。句式使用上需要多樣化，避免簡(jiǎn)單句的連續(xù)出現(xiàn)，但也不能過度堆砌長(zhǎng)難句而讓文章顯得累贅。詞匯運(yùn)用上不能重復(fù)使用相同詞匯，要體現(xiàn)出一定的變化展現(xiàn)詞匯量，但也要確保所用詞匯的正確表達(dá)，不能為了追求新穎而濫用生僻詞匯，也需要避免詞匯間錯(cuò)誤搭配的問題。
4. 字?jǐn)?shù)篇幅
雖然GRE考試對(duì)于作文字?jǐn)?shù)篇幅從來沒有提出過明確要求，但根據(jù)官方公布的各類高分范文來看，一般來說字?jǐn)?shù)在400-600字是最佳范圍。這是因?yàn)槠^短的文章，容易給考官留下考生寫作能力不足，無法表達(dá)出自己想法的印象，但篇幅太長(zhǎng)同樣會(huì)給人留下啰嗦累贅的感覺。因此把文章的篇幅字?jǐn)?shù)控制在400-600字是最為合適的做法。
總而言之，GRE寫作成績(jī)無論從考試本身出發(fā)而是從招生錄取角度考慮都是相當(dāng)重要的，哪怕不計(jì)入總分，考生也應(yīng)該投入足夠的精力時(shí)間認(rèn)真?zhèn)淇级皇请S意打發(fā)敷衍，如此才能保證一個(gè)足以匹配大家高分總分的寫作得分。
GRE寫作滿分作品
題目：
"Students should memorize facts only after they have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts. Students who have learned only facts have learned very little."
學(xué)生們?cè)谟洃浿R(shí)的時(shí)候應(yīng)該先學(xué)習(xí)有助于解釋那些知識(shí)的理念、潮流和概念。僅僅死學(xué)知識(shí)的學(xué)生是學(xué)不到什么東西的。
正文：
The speaker makes a threshold claim that students who learn only facts learn very little, then concludes that students should always learn about concepts, ideas, and trends before they memorize facts. While I wholeheartedly agree with the threshold claim, the conclusion unfairly generalizes about the learning process. In fact, following the speaker's advice would actually impede the learning of concepts and ideas, as well as impeding the development of insightfuland useful new ones.
Turning first to the speaker's threshold claim, I strongly agree that if we learn only facts we learn very little. Consider the task of memorizing the periodic table of elements, which any student can memorize without any knowledge of chemistry, or that the table relates to chemistry. Rote memorization of the table amounts to a bit of mental exercise-an opportunity to practice memorization techniques and perhaps learn some new ones. Otherwise, the student has learned very little about chemical elements, or about anything for that matter.
As for the speaker's ultimate claim, I concede that postponing the memorization of facts until after one learns ideas and concepts holds certain advantages. With a conceptual framework already in place a student is better able to understand the meaning of a fact, and to appreciate its significance. As a result, the student is more likely to memorize the fact to begin with, and less likely to forget it as time passes. Moreover, in my observation students whose first goal is to memorize facts tend to stop there--for whatever reason. It seems that by focusing on facts first students risk equating the learning process with the assimilation of trivia; in turn, students risk learning nothing of much use in solving real world problems.
Conceding that students must learn ideas and concepts, as well as facts relating to them, in order to learning anything meaningful, I nevertheless disagree that the former should always precede the latter--for three reasons. In the first place, I see know reason why memorizing a fact cannot precede learning about its meaning and significance--as long as the student does not stop at rote memorization. Consider once again our hypothetical chemistry student. The speaker might advise this student to first learn about the historical trends leading to the discovery of the elements, or to learn about the concepts of altering chemical compounds to achieve certain reactions--before studying the periodic table. Having no familiarity with the basic vocabulary of chemistry, which includes the information in the periodic table, this student would come away from the first two lessons bewildered and confused in other words, having learned little.
In the second place, the speaker misunderstands the process by which we learn ideas and concepts, and by which we develop new ones. Consider, for example, how economics students learn about the relationship between supply and demand, and the resulting concept of market equilibrium, and of surplus and shortage. Learning about the dynamics of supply and demand involves (1) entertaining a theory, and perhaps even formulating a new one, (2) testing hypothetical scenarios against the theory, and (3) examining real-world facts for the purpose of confirming, refuting, modifying, or qualifying the theory. But which step should come first? The speaker would have us follow steps 1 through 3 in that order. Yet, theories, concepts, and ideas rarely materialize out of thin air; they generally emerge from empirical observations--i.e., facts. Thus the speaker's notion about how we should learn concepts and ideas gets the learning process backwards.
In the third place, strict adherence to the speaker's advice would surely lead to ill-conceived ideas, concepts, and theories. Why? An idea or concept conjured up without the benefit of data amounts to little more than the conjurer's hopes and desires. Accordingly, conjurers will tend to seek out facts that support their prejudices and opinions, and overlook or avoid facts that refute them. One telling example involves theories about the center of the universe. Understandably, we ego-driven humans would prefer that the universe revolve around us. Early theories presumed so for this reason, and facts that ran contrary to this ego-driven theory were ignored, while observers of these facts were scorned and even vilified. In short, students who strictly follow the speaker's prescription are unlikely to contribute significantly to the advancement of knowledge.
To sum up, in a vacuum facts are meaningless, and only by filling that vacuum with ideas and concepts can students learn, by gaining useful perspectives and insights about facts. Yet, since facts are the very stuff from which ideas, concepts, and trends spring, without some facts students cannot learn much of anything. In the final analysis, then, students should learn facts right along with concepts, ideas, and trends.
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(dòng)物數(shù)量的減少明顯標(biāo)志著全球性水與大氣的污染。對(duì)加利福尼亞州約塞米蒂國(guó)家公園內(nèi)兩棲動(dòng)物所作的兩項(xiàng)研究可證實(shí)我的這一結(jié)論。1915年公園內(nèi)有七個(gè)物種的兩棲動(dòng)物，每一物種都擁有豐富的種群數(shù)量。然而，1992年，在公園內(nèi)所能觀察到的兩棲動(dòng)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(dòng)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(dòng)物所產(chǎn)的卵)。但鮭魚的引入不可能成為約塞米蒂公園動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少的真正原因，因?yàn)樗鼰o法來解釋全球范圍內(nèi)的動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少?！?/p>
[范文正文]
在本項(xiàng)論述中，信函作者的結(jié)論是，全球性水與大氣污染已致使世界范圍內(nèi)兩棲動(dòng)物的數(shù)量減少。為了支持其論點(diǎn)，作者援引了兩份時(shí)隔75年之久的研究結(jié)果，這兩份結(jié)果據(jù)稱可證明加利福尼亞州某一公園――即約塞米蒂國(guó)家公園――內(nèi)兩棲動(dòng)物的數(shù)量銳減。此外，該作者撇開了動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少的一個(gè)已知原因，陳述道，將鮭魚引入公園(據(jù)稱，鮭魚喜食兩棲動(dòng)物所產(chǎn)的卵)這一做法不足以解釋世界范圍內(nèi)兩棲動(dòng)物數(shù)量上的減少。這一論點(diǎn)有悖于簡(jiǎn)單的邏輯，犯有一系列關(guān)鍵性的邏輯謬誤。
首先，該論點(diǎn)所依據(jù)的僅僅是世界上某一特定地點(diǎn)――即加利福尼亞州約塞米蒂國(guó)家公園――內(nèi)的兩份研究。圍繞著兩棲動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少這一問題，如果僅以世界上一個(gè)特定的地點(diǎn)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(dòng)物的具體種類、地理狀況以及其他因地點(diǎn)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(gè)非常具體的地點(diǎn)不能用作一個(gè)代表所有其他地點(diǎn)的模型，即使在一個(gè)特定的國(guó)家內(nèi)也不行，更不用說在整個(gè)世界范圍內(nèi)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(xiàng)互為獨(dú)立的研究時(shí)隔75年之久。沒有證據(jù)可證明這兩項(xiàng)研究是在相同的時(shí)間跨度內(nèi)以相似的方式進(jìn)行的，或是在約塞米蒂公園完全相同的地點(diǎn)進(jìn)行的，或所使用的研究方法絕然相同。
例如，第一項(xiàng)研究可能持續(xù)了整整一年之久，且是由兩棲動(dòng)物生物學(xué)領(lǐng)域的二十五位專家共同進(jìn)行的。結(jié)果是發(fā)現(xiàn)了七大種類數(shù)目眾多的兩棲動(dòng)物。相反，第二項(xiàng)研究可能是一位高中生孤身一人所做的學(xué)校的一個(gè)科學(xué)課題，僅為期一個(gè)星期。信函作者沒有提供將此兩項(xiàng)研究進(jìn)行比較的基礎(chǔ)，從而使兩項(xiàng)研究在其廣度、范圍以及專業(yè)水準(zhǔn)方面的可比性不得而知。 最后，信函作者指出，兩棲動(dòng)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(nèi)動(dòng)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(rèn)。信函作者論述中的這一部分漫不經(jīng)心地將一個(gè)極為相關(guān)的事實(shí)棄置不顧，即眾所周知，鮭魚喜食兩棲動(dòng)物所產(chǎn)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(fù)擔(dān)重新轉(zhuǎn)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(duì)應(yīng)。鮭魚極有可能造成了兩棲動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少這一事實(shí)在缺乏進(jìn)一步證據(jù)的情況下是斷不能輕易予以否認(rèn)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(nèi)兩棲生命數(shù)量減少之間建立起任何因果關(guān)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(diǎn)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(xiàng)研究幾乎不能說明任何問題。欲使其論點(diǎn)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(dòng)物數(shù)量減少聯(lián)系起來，而且也與世界其他地方的動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少聯(lián)系起來。
GRE寫作高效提分建議分享 相關(guān)文章：
