gre寫作issue與argument的異同
在gre寫作考試中會有issue和argument。那么，各位對gre作文issue、gre作文argument有沒有進行過了解呢?下面小編就和大家分享gre寫作 issue與argument的異同,希望能夠幫助到大家，來欣賞一下吧。
gre寫作 issue與argument的異同
考生想要在gre寫作中取得好成績，就需要同時寫出兩篇不錯的文章來，這對于不少英語基礎(chǔ)一般，寫作水平也普通的同學(xué)來說并不容易做到。不過，如果大家能夠充分了解gre作文issue和argument的異同點，并進行足夠的練習(xí)，高分作文也還是很有把握的。下面小編就為大家全面解析gre寫作兩篇作文的異同之處，幫助大家練好寫作思路確保作文高分。
gre寫作兩篇作文相同點
雖然gre作文argument和issue有很多不同之處，但在一些基本的規(guī)范和要求上還是有共通之處的：
1. 文章基本要求相同
gre兩篇作文的考試時間都是30分鐘。考生需要在30分鐘內(nèi)完成從審題到構(gòu)思到最后成文的整個流程。而兩篇文章的文體風(fēng)格也基本相同，都是屬于議論文性質(zhì)的寫作。因此，很多考生比較懼怕的描述類文章就不會有所涉及了。同時，雖然gre考試本身并沒有做出任何字?jǐn)?shù)方面的限制和要求，但根據(jù)歷年來的高分范文總結(jié)，一般作文字?jǐn)?shù)在400-500字左右是比較穩(wěn)妥的，這一點ISSUE和ARGUMENT兩篇作文也沒有太大區(qū)別。
2. 文章評分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)相同
除了規(guī)范要求外，gre兩篇作文在評分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)上也是基本相同的。大致都可以分為文章整體結(jié)構(gòu)、邏輯思維能力、對于詞句語法的運用以及論據(jù)素材的使用這幾個方面。當(dāng)然，由于兩篇文章本身具體寫作要求的區(qū)別，可能在一些評分細(xì)節(jié)上還存在不同。
3. 官方復(fù)習(xí)資源相同
無論是ISSUE作文還是ARGUMENT作文，兩篇gre作文的復(fù)習(xí)資源也是基本相同的。除了官方公布的作文練習(xí)題外，高分范文、黃金詞句和論據(jù)素材都是幫助考生練習(xí)寫作能力鍛煉作文水平需要用到的復(fù)習(xí)必備材料。
gre寫作兩篇作文不同點
說完了相似之處，接下來小編為大家介紹一下兩篇作文的不同之處：
1. 寫作具體要求區(qū)別
gre ISSUE作文的寫作要求，大體相當(dāng)于中文里的立論文，也就是根據(jù)作文題目給出的內(nèi)容自己確定一個論點觀點后搭框架寫文章。而與之相對的ARGUMENT，則是駁論性質(zhì)的文章，需要考生根據(jù)給出的題目和觀點進行反駁，也就是通俗意義上的挑錯。
2. 寫作難度有所不同
對于并非英語母語的中國考生來說，ISSUE作文的難度是比較高的，因為寫好立論文需要考生自己根據(jù)題目提煉觀點，如果考生本身的自主思維能力和創(chuàng)造力比較一般，很有可能出現(xiàn)不知道如何找觀點寫文章的情況。而且不少考生存在缺乏主動思考能力的問題，對于寫作比較被動，很容易就會寫偏題。而ARGUMENT作文則相對簡單一些，考生只需要根據(jù)給出的內(nèi)容找邏輯漏洞和問題，并針對這些問題攻擊挑錯就能完成寫作任務(wù)，更容易找到寫作思路。
3. 復(fù)習(xí)方法花費時間不同
ISSUE作文需要花費更多的時間用于復(fù)習(xí)，理由上文已經(jīng)說過，中國考生大多更難寫好ISSUE，因此練習(xí)的時間也會因此增加。而復(fù)習(xí)ISSUE作文的重點，應(yīng)該放在準(zhǔn)備作文模板和練習(xí)快速列提綱搭框架之上?？忌磄re備考資料備考資料等復(fù)習(xí)資料時，也應(yīng)該更加著眼于從文章題目的整體出發(fā)，把握住題目的主旨，提煉好觀點節(jié)省考試時間。
ARGUMENT作文難度較低，需要的復(fù)習(xí)時間也比較少。而復(fù)習(xí)ARGUMENT，考生則應(yīng)該把注意力更多地集中在根據(jù)官方練習(xí)題學(xué)習(xí)找邏輯漏洞進行攻擊的具體寫法上。因為哪怕題目千變?nèi)f化，但能夠用以攻擊反駁的邏輯問題其實就那么固定的幾種，大家只要練熟了找茬的本領(lǐng)學(xué)會了寫作套路，想要寫好ARGU并不困難。同時，考生在學(xué)習(xí)gre作文備考資料時，對于ARGU部分的備考資料，從文章細(xì)節(jié)漏洞等角度入手會收獲更好的復(fù)習(xí)效果。
GRE寫作高分范文：批判性思維
Too much time, money, and energy are spent developing new and more elaborate technology. Society should instead focus on maximizing the use of existing technology for the immediate benefit of its citizens.
I must say that I reject this statement. While it is true that we need to support society as much as possible with current technology, that does not in any way mean that we should stop progressing simply because our current technology cannot handle all the problems we have brought to it. Does that mean that we should simply accept the status quo and make do? No, I don’t think so. To do so would be tantamount to adopting a fatalistic approach; I think most people would reject that.
Technology has helped, and it has hurt. Without it, we would never have our standard of living, nor quality of nutrition, expectation of a long and productive life span, and the unshakable belief that our lives can be made even better. But it has also brought us universal pollution, weapons so powerful as to be capable of rendering us extinct, and the consequent fear for our survival as species and as a planet. Technology is indeed a double-edged sword. And yet, I still have to argue in its favor, because without it, we have no hope.
Some might argue that we would be better off without technology. They might say that a return to a less technologically driven approach to life would have the benefits of reducing stress and allowing us to live simpler, happier lives, like those of our forebears. Such an idea is seductive, so much so that much of art and all of nostalgia are devoted to it. But upon closer inspection, one realizes that such a move would only return us to a life of different kinds of stress, one of false simplicity, one fraught with danger. It would be a life
without antibiotics where a minor cut could prove deadly. It would be a life where childbirth is the main killer of women, and where an emergency is dealt with in terms of hours and days instead of minutes and hours; a life where there are no phones or cars or planes or central heating, no proven drug therapies to treat mental illness, no computers. Would this world really make people happy?
What we already have, we have. And since the only way to move is forward, instead of allowing ourselves to be paralyzed by fear and worry, we need to learn how to clean up the pollution we have caused, and how to deal with a world that feeds on weapons and mass destruction. Doing these things means having to move away from technology into a more difficult realm, that of diplomacy and compromise: to move from the bully stance of “I am bigger and better and I have more toys and so I win” to a place where everyone wins.
Technology is the thing that will allow people to do that. But, advanced as it is, it is still in its infancy. We have to allow it to grow up and mature in order to reap the real rewards that it can bring. And there are even greater rewards ahead of us than what the world has already experienced. When technology is pushed to the outer edge, that is where serendipitous discoveries can occur. This has been seen throughout technological advancement, but the easiest example is probably the space program which made us think, really hard, about how to do things in a different environment. It gave us telecommunications, new fabrics and international cooperation. Paramedical devices, so that people can be treated even as they are being transported to the hosptal, are a direct development of that technology. None of this would have happened in the time frame that it did if we had not pushed for technological advancement. If we had decided to
第二段：
(概述科技的兩面性)Technology has helped, and it has hurt. (具體討論科技的貢獻)Without it, we would never have our standard of living, nor quality of nutrition, expectation of a long and productive life span, and the unshakable belief that our lives can be made even better. (具體討論科技的危害)But it has also brought us universal pollution, weapons so powerful as to be capable of rendering us extinct, and the consequent fear for our survival as species and as a planet. Technology is indeed a double-edged sword. (表明已考慮到科技的危害，但是依然堅持自己立場)And yet, I still have to argue in its favor, because without it, we have no hope.
第三段：
(提出反方的立場)Some might argue that we would be better off without technology. They might say that a return to a less technologically driven approach to life would have the benefits of reducing stress and allowing us to live simpler, happier lives, like those of our forebears. Such an idea is seductive, so much so that much of art and all of nostalgia are devoted to it. (通過具體論據(jù)反駁反方的觀點)But upon closer inspection, one realizes that such a move would only return us to a life of different kinds of stress, one of false simplicity, one fraught with danger. It would be a life without antibiotics where a minor cut could prove deadly. It would be a life where childbirth is the main killer of women, and where an emergency is dealt with in terms of hours and days instead of minutes and hours; a life where there are no phones or cars or planes or central heating, no proven drug therapies to treat mental illness, no computers. Would this world really make people happy?
第四段：
(在第三段駁論的基礎(chǔ)上進一步立論)What we already have, we have. And since the only way to move is forward, instead of allowing ourselves to be paralyzed by fear and worry, we need to learn how to clean up the pollution we have caused, and how to deal with a world that feeds on weapons and mass destruction. Doing these things means having to move away from technology into a more difficult realm, that of diplomacy and compromise: to move from the bully stance of “I am bigger and better and I have more toys and so I win” to a place where everyone wins.
第五段：
Technology is the thing that will allow people to do that. (指出支持觀點存在的一點不足)But, advanced as it is, it is still in its infancy. (解決方案)We have to allow it to grow up and mature in order to reap the real rewards that it can bring. And there are even greater rewards ahead of us than what the world has already experienced. When technology is pushed to the outer edge, that is where serendipitous discoveries can occur. This has been seen throughout technological advancement, but the easiest example is probably the space program which made us think, really hard, about how to do things in a different environment. It gave us telecommunications, new fabrics and international cooperation. Paramedical devices, so that people can be treated even as they are being transported to the hospital, are a direct development of that technology. None of this would have happened in the time frame that it did if we had not pushed for technological advancement. If we had decided to “focus on maximizing the use of existing technology” instead of foolishly reaching for the stars, we would not have made those discoveries which now are the bedrock of the 21st century.
gre滿分作文重點：Critical Thinking.當(dāng)然，提高critical thinking能力的同時，也很有必要包裝語言。
GRE寫作高分范文：名人觀點
When famous people give their opinions, many people listen. Should we pay attention to those remarks?
When Tom Cruise once appeared in a TV program, he was too excited so he jumped up and down the couch. Later “jump the couch” was adopted in the American dictionary for slang. This is a bit exaggerating, but it definitely reflects the fact that when famous people give their opinions, many people listen. But, should we pay attention to these remarks or actions?
Firstly, famous people are “famous”, for they have one or few aspects that exceed common people. Like Albert Einstein once said, “I think and think for months, for years, ninety-nine times the conclusion false, but the hundredth time I am right.” As a brilliant scientist, he speaks of the right attitudes towards science and inspires countless people to fight for the truth. Hollywood actors or actresses, they may talk about their dressing styles or skin cares on magazine. These are all advice that we might as well take, for real life is not just serious academic things but also the satisfaction of living.
But the point is that, celebrities are not perfect role models for the public. Once I heard a story about Einstein, saying that he nearly got into the water when he once harassed a young lady and got refused when they were in a boat in a park. Is Einstein evil somehow? No! He’s just being human. Then is it wrong to harass ladies? Yes. But all humans make mistakes. Celebrities are experts in certain areas but not all. In some other fields, they should even learn from us.
Generally, there are two extremes when talking about celebrities: the public are either too critical or too superstitious. Objectively, both of the attitudes are unnecessary. As a Chinese saying which generalizes this situation the best goes: to take in the good, while to get rid of the bad.
gre寫作issue與argument的異同相關(guān)文章：