雅思寫作經(jīng)驗思路清晰很重要
雅思寫作經(jīng)驗之華麗辭草并不及思路清晰有用
雅思寫作經(jīng)驗之華麗辭草并不及思路清晰有用一文告訴了我們雅思寫作的高分真諦。那就是行文思路清晰，邏輯完整這一點。當然，這是眾多評分點當中的一個，卻也是最重要的那一個。下面小編就和大家分享雅思寫作經(jīng)驗之華麗辭草并不及思路清晰有用，希望能夠幫助到大家，來欣賞一下吧。
雅思寫作經(jīng)驗之華麗辭草并不及思路清晰有用
雅思寫作一直是中國考生的弱項，如何達到雅思7.0分?本文一名考生用自身經(jīng)驗告訴你。
雅思寫作對我來說不是強項，寫來寫去頭腦中的原創(chuàng)詞匯還是高中學到的那些。所以這里咱們需要先明白一些東西：
很多人喜歡用模板，特別是十天雅思寫作的書籍， 如果你的分數(shù)要求是6分以下，那你大膽的用，如果想上6分或7分甚至更高，就不要用那么多的模板，就算要用，也要挑與自己水平相適應的，不要挑些看起來很高級的，其實根本沒用，反而會讓你分數(shù)變低。。。 因為考官其實不是討厭那些模板，他們反感的是高級的模板與你寫的文章的語言水平根本不是同一個層次的，寫出來的一篇文章里層次相差太大。想想看，讀一篇中文的作文，如果每段的開頭結(jié)尾轉(zhuǎn)折的地方都用些華麗麗的詞、文言文、詩句什么的啊，但是接下來卻是用最普通易懂的語言，你看了會怎么想呢?
此外，有些人認為寫作要拿高分，一定要用上很多高級詞匯，以顯示自己的高水準，其實不然。大家可以看看劍橋書后面的考官寫的范文，其中并沒有所謂的高級詞匯，都是一些通俗易懂的，大家都認識的單詞。但是為什么那種文章就是好呢?仔細讀過幾遍，你會發(fā)現(xiàn)，那些文章寫的很通順，觀點闡述也很清晰，說白了，讀起來就是很舒服。其實我們也可以做到。別在那些高難度詞上糾纏啦，別到時侯用詞不當，拼寫錯誤，反而弄巧成拙。我們只要做到，觀點表達清楚，用些熟悉的從句，來 1-2個倒裝句，再加上恰到好處的連接詞，一篇好文章就出爐啦。
所以，最有效的方法是拿別人的高分范文來分析，看他們是怎么開頭和過度的。通過閱讀其他考生的范文，總結(jié)出自己的開頭段與中間連接的各種詞組、句子結(jié)構(gòu)等等。原因是：不像那些寫書的專家，給出的模板看似簡單，卻恰恰要求你模板以外的文字要特別出眾，否則就拿不到高分，而其他考生畢竟是考生，水平和你差不多，用他們的東西更能轉(zhuǎn)化為自己的。
Tip1：不要用你自己都不熟悉的單詞，不要制造機會讓考官扣你分。
Tip2：小作文多用些模板，以減少時間;大作文請盡量少用模板，如果要用，請用些沒那么多人用的模板。
Tip3：外國人喜歡有案例來支持你的論點，所以請多寫一些有關你論點的新聞報道或研究數(shù)據(jù)來作為例子。
Tip4：詞匯咱們不求多華麗，只要句子結(jié)構(gòu)和連接詞用的出彩些，高分也不是問題。
比如：很多人用for example，for instance來舉例，其實你可以用according to the lastest research,或like Prof.X.X.X said in University of NewYork：X.X.X.X.X… 這些都是很普通卻很有說服力的連接詞。而書上模板往往讓你背的是：for example，on the other hand等等。
再比如，我自己就從某考生那里借用了一種句型，現(xiàn)在用起來特別爽，很有氣勢!!
普通的寫法：
Even if machine translation were able to eradicate all the language barriers between peoples, learning foreign languages still make sense.
加工后的句型：
Even if machine translation were able to eradicate all the language barriers between people, would there be no point in learning foreign languages? By no means.
Tip5：你再怎么不喜歡作文，考前3天請一定要寫幾篇練練。反正我是考前5天才開始弄作文，讀讀其他人的、背背句子、自己掐時間寫寫，不過后面也懶了，只寫過度的地方，為了熟悉自己的句型，其他句子腦中過一遍就好了。
雅思寫作Task2社會類考官范文
Write about the following topic:
Modern lifestyles mean that many parents have little time for their children. Many children suffer because they do not get as much attention from their parents as children did in the past.
Do you agree or disagree?
Model Answer:
People who argue that nowadays parents give less attention to their children than in the past are frequently looking back to a brief period of time in the twentieth century when mothers in middle-class families remained at home to look after their children. What these people are suggesting is that women nowadays should not go out to work.
The fact of the matter is that in the majority of families in the past both parents worked much longer hours than they do nowadays. What has changed is that now in most countries their children attend school rather than also working themselves. In that sense they may have less contact with their parents.
Nowadays, as a result of acquiring an education, children come into contact with teachers who naturally have to explain why some of their students are failing. What teachers come up with are frequent stories of parents who are simply too busy for their children. And if children are not supervised by their parents, they will often underperform at school. However, academic failure is nothing new even when one or both parents are at home. If children are neglected by their parents, they will suffer.
In my opinion, children probably suffered more in the past when the whole family was obliged to work long hours just to survive. Nowadays children are protected by the law. Moreover access to education means that they have greater opportunities than ever before.
雅思寫作Task2社會類考官范文
Write about the following topic:
Some people feel that certain workers like nurses, doctors and teachers are undervalued and should be paid more, especially when other people like film actors or company bosses are paid huge sums of money that are out of proportion to the importance of the work that they do.
-How far do you agree?
-What criteria should be used to decide how much people are paid?
Model Answer:
Nobody can deny that there are certain professionals like nurses, doctors and teachers who are essential to the fabric of society, and who should therefore be rewarded accordingly. However, this is seldom the case. When we look at the salaries and fees commanded by certain film stars and actresses and people who run large companies, this does not seem fair.
First of all, not all film stars earn huge sums of money. In fact, at any one time in the UK, for example, roughly 80 per cent of actors are out of work and on top of that the number who are paid so-called ‘telephone number fees’ is even smaller. One must also remember that the career of many actors is very short and that therefore the money they earn has to be spread over many years. The same applies to company bosses.
Stating a set of criteria as to how much people should be paid is not easy. The idea of performance-related pay is very much in vogue at the moment. Rewarding people according to qualifications has long been used as a yardstick for paying people, but it is not a consistently good measure. Another is years of relevant experience, but there are many cases where a younger person can perform a task better than someone with lots of experience.
Whatever criteria are used to assess salaries, an on-going cycle will develop. This will create pressure in other areas. This considered, generally I feel that certain key professionals should have their salaries assessed by independent review bodies on an on-going basis so that they do not fall behind.
英語寫作相關文章：