GRE寫作高分經(jīng)驗分享
GRE寫作高分經(jīng)驗分享 立論駁論文提分心得不可不看，快來看看吧,下面小編就和大家分享，來欣賞一下吧。
GRE寫作高分經(jīng)驗分享 立論駁論文提分心得不可不看
以下就是我自己總結(jié)一點(diǎn)小技巧：首先，我在準(zhǔn)備GRE寫作備考時，最重要的一個步驟在于熟悉題庫和認(rèn)真準(zhǔn)備提綱。
GRE立論文issue經(jīng)驗分享
對于立論文(Issue)說，我覺得自己動手?jǐn)M一份提綱是非常有用的，你可以參考各種資料，但必須勤動腦，想一想提綱的邏輯連續(xù)性。實際上，有偏向性、但又不要絕對化的思路才是最易上手的。
GRE駁論文argument怎么練?
對于駁論文(Argument)而言，我認(rèn)為熟悉題庫更為重要。正常情況下是這樣的，但的確有些難題若不事先好好準(zhǔn)備，五分鐘之內(nèi)能找出兩個錯誤就不錯了。在第一次考試時，我正是因為在準(zhǔn)備時放掉了一道我只找出兩個錯誤的題目，而在正式考試時恰恰碰到了這道題目，所以寫得很不好。
寫駁論文有很多小竅門，如需要鍛煉出區(qū)別“事實”和“觀點(diǎn)”的能力，不論題目中所給的事實有多夸張都需認(rèn)為它是對的，不能攻擊，只能攻擊觀點(diǎn)中的邏輯漏洞;凡是跟統(tǒng)計數(shù)字、統(tǒng)計方法有關(guān)的邏輯錯誤都盡量不要攻擊，最多只能一筆帶過等等。
GRE作文邏輯重要嗎?
雖然邏輯作文滿分只有6分，可千萬別小看了它的重要性。從某種程度上來說，它是GRE的精華——因為GRE考的就是邏輯，用英語寫兩篇作文只是形式而已，主要目的就是考察你的邏輯分析水平。
怎樣看待GRE作文中的語言水平?
至于GRE作文的語言，其實不是很重要，只要通順、沒有語法錯誤就可以了，掌握了這些就可以更好地備考GRE作文。希望可以給大家一些參考，從而更好地備考GRE閱讀考試。
新GRE寫作：審查的公正性
題目：
Censorship is rarely, if ever, justified.
審查很少能夠做到公正。
范文：
“Censorship” is a word which seems to be authoritative rather than democratic, which implies the will of the governors rather than the will of general people. Since the occurrence of the censorship, which could be traced back to the Ancient Rome, it has been playing an important part in the domestic affairs while to arouse applause and condemnation as well. Here the our government faces a dilemma, is it fair to carry on the censorship at the cost of sacrificing part of democracy, or just open the gate letting flows of ideas and thoughts in, at the risk of losing its own rampart.
Since censorship suggest an act of changing or suppressing speech, writing or any other forms of expression that is condemned as subversive of the common good, it must have a close relationship with the one who applies such supervision, and the word “common good” should be redefined under different conditions. There is time when we were all under a powerful monarchy, and the “common good” is the “monarch good”, then the censorship itself is the instrument of the monarch which solely depended on the will of the monarch; in the Middle Ages, both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Churches practiced censorship that seemed to be oppressive to any ideas challenging the doctrines of churches and the existence of God; even now, in some authoritative countries, the censorship is used to rule its people by restricting their minds, of course, for the stability of their governing over the people. With these regards, censorship itself is questioned at the rationality of existing, regardless of the practices made by the democratic government, while the justice of the democratic government is quite doubtable.
The matter concerning is not only who practices the censorship but also how it is practiced. Since different men make different comments on the same work of art, for example, it is hard to set up a measure by which we could decide whether one should be prohibited, especially to the work of arts, as its content always labeled as “subversive” and “revolutionary”, two words detested by the governors most. Such cases could be found in Ulysses by J. Joyce and Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H Lawrence, these two great novels were firstly considered to be guilty of obscenity and were put to prohibition by the American government, but turned out to be true masterpieces today. So any form of censorship, to some extent, lags behind the development of ideas and will put more or less a negative effect on their development.
Though the censorship is such a disgusting word embodying so much oppression and might, it is a compromise we made with the reality far from being perfect, to provide a comparative stable ground which we could stand on. At this point, I don’t agree with the institute like ACLU who oppose any censorship. The censorship, though rarely justified, should exist as long as a more ideal and practical form is found to replace it, or we could only expect our God to create a more ideal species instead of imperfect human beings.
新GRE寫作：權(quán)威問題
題目：
Much of the information that people assume is ‘factual’ actually turns out to be inaccurate. Thus, any piece of information referred to as a ‘fact’ should be mistrusted since it may well be proven false in the future.
大多數(shù)人們認(rèn)為是事實的信息結(jié)果實際上都是不準(zhǔn)確的。因此，任何據(jù)稱是事實的信息都應(yīng)該被質(zhì)疑，因為它在將來很可能會被證明為是錯誤的。
范文：
Should we be doubtful to all the information at hands because the rightness of which is uncertain? The speaker claims so, I concede that people often commit various fallacies in the course of cognizing things, however I fundamentally take exception of the arguer's assertion to mistrust every fact we might encounter. And I will substantially discuss my views thereinafter.
To begin with, the speaker seems to implicate that a fact would be proven false in the future under numerous circumstance. Nevertheless I prefer to argue that facts never change. No matter how did the Medieval Church and Inquisition persecute Bruno, the fact never changes that the earth is far from being the center of the universe as the religious sovereigns had assumed or hoped for, while just a minor particle in it. Equally, no matter how Edison had tried to incite the public fear and distrust to the alternative current electricity, the fact never changes that Teals’ electrical system is vastly superior to his direct current electrical one, and would be accepted and applied in larger range.
However, what do change are the human's objective interpretations to facts. One compelling argument to this point is that, due to the limitation of human’s knowledge and comprehensive capability, they tend to make insufficient or even false understanding to the certain fact. An apt illustration is the changes of cognition to disease. While at the ancient time, our progenitors believed the a man becoming a patient for the reason that he had conduct crimes or offended some ghosts or spirits, the contemporary people have well know that the varies of pathogens are the basic causes to our diseases, and the defects of our immune system and so forth are also the factors as well. Another argument for the change of comprehension to fact is that different people always observe and interpret from different perspectives. Though the Relativity theory is not well compliable with the Quantum mechanism, no one call the greatness of both Einstein and Bohr, because their theories are based on distinct views, the former from the macrocosm and the later from the microcosm.
Notwithstanding the foregoing reasons for that human tend to make fallacies during the cause of comprehending and cognizing facts, these reasons should never be the excuses to doubt every conclusion we might draw from facts. Based on certain rational inference and proper knowledge fundament, the conclusions we make might well be justifiable, if not completely right, to certain degree. What we need to do is to promote the enterprise of pursuing the better answer and try to use the result we have get to application, instead of wasting our time to undue doubt and suspicion. Though the medical scientists have not fully understood the mechanism of how the does the implanted organ interact with the wounded body, they are not refrain from using the implanting skill to save patients, of course the precondition or which is that this technology is much well established than the fundamental theory.
To sum up, while I advocate the speaker's opinion that it is inevitable for human to comprehend facts inaccurately, for the reason of the limitation of the abilities, I essentially disagree with his assertion that facts will continually alter themselves, as well as his recommendation to discredit any piece of fact. In the final analysis, I would argue once more that facts never change and although the misunderstanding to them is inevitable, we should not defer ourselves from the pursuit to fully comprehending them.
GRE寫作高分經(jīng)驗分享相關(guān)文章：
上一篇：GRE高分作文都是怎么練出來的
