GRE寫作常見易錯扣分問題
在GRE寫作考試中，考生經(jīng)常會犯下一些錯誤，這些錯誤其實(shí)都比較普遍，但如果考生不夠重視忽略這些錯誤問題，可能就會對作文得分造成負(fù)面影響。下面小編就和大家分享從 GRE寫作常見易錯扣分問題盤點(diǎn)分析，希望能夠幫助到大家，來欣賞一下吧。
GRE寫作常見易錯扣分問題盤點(diǎn)分析
GRE寫作常見扣分問題：邏輯不清
大體上來說，同學(xué)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(shí)這可能和我們高中初中的英語教育有關(guān)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(shí)上，中西方的思維總是存在差異，很多時候看管老師們都不懂考生在說什么。考官很困惑，這個例子和這個有關(guān)系嗎?為什么前面在說A，后面突然B了?
GRE寫作常見扣分問題：結(jié)構(gòu)混亂
和結(jié)論什么關(guān)系?要記住一點(diǎn)，GRE作文文章是一個整體，你的開篇結(jié)尾和中部內(nèi)容都是應(yīng)該有關(guān)聯(lián)的。也就是說，在開頭提到的，文中應(yīng)該有展開，同時在結(jié)尾有總結(jié)。中文里不也要求行文流暢么，這至少得要求邏輯是通順的。
GRE寫作常見扣分問題：觀點(diǎn)模糊
很多同學(xué)都很喜歡寫中立觀點(diǎn)“A不錯，但不夠好”，這雖然看起來很客觀，但實(shí)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(yīng)的論據(jù)論點(diǎn)，非?？简?yàn)人。
有同學(xué)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(diǎn)什么了。更有厲害的索性冗長的2000來詞，講了個空話。所以建議剛上手的同學(xué)，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(diǎn)，實(shí)際上也都在A和B之間有所偏好。
GRE寫作常見扣分問題：內(nèi)容空泛
此外，現(xiàn)在很多人會要求練writing的時候先寫提綱。于是同學(xué)們們就只寫一個觀點(diǎn)，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(shí)上，這種展開，可以是實(shí)例，也可以是虛擬的假設(shè)。實(shí)例中往往分自己的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和他人的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。那么怎樣的例子有說服力呢?
一般來說是：名人名事(知名度大)>眾人眾事(樣本大)>自己經(jīng)歷(體會深)>他人經(jīng)歷。假設(shè)往往不夠有說服力，因?yàn)楹茈y涉及到每一個變量。但是假設(shè)在有的時候可以行得通，就是在很難說清楚步驟和因果關(guān)系的時候，用一個假設(shè)場景來推導(dǎo)會讓文章變得淺顯易懂。
所以建議，在剛開始上手寫GRE作文的時候，先不要給自己30分鐘的壓力，先列出提綱(10分鐘)，再用30分鐘去寫，看能寫多少。
GRE寫作常見扣分問題：論證不實(shí)
記住你的舉例一定要死死扣住你的GRE作文觀點(diǎn)，不要是和觀點(diǎn)打擦邊球的。
例子一定要從論點(diǎn)出發(fā)，再回到論點(diǎn)。不要將你的論點(diǎn)發(fā)散，后果很可能就是越寫越跑題。所以每次寫好一篇文章，都看看，論據(jù)里的 key words 是不是和論點(diǎn)里的 key words 一樣，論點(diǎn)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寫作高分范文：批判性思維
GRE寫作范文：
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(xiàn))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(jiān)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(diǎn))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(jìn)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(diǎn)存在的一點(diǎn)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(diǎn)：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：短期內(nèi)怎樣提高
Argument句型
開頭
In this analysis, the arguer claims that …should …To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the example of …where …In addition, the arguer assumes that …This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.
正文：
For instance …since …what’s more …etc.
and how well it represented the public opinions..
The sample of the survey is not representative.
(樣本太小)
the sample is too small to...
(光數(shù)字沒比例)
the ratio of four to six
there is only figures but no proportion of the survey 還是ratio?
Insufficient Sample
If the [respondents] only stand for a tiny proportion of the whole [group], we should not be so sure about the conclusion that [the whole group…]
The arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization.
It was only carried out in Sun City, but the arguer applies its result to all the company’s markets while doesn’t show us whether Sun City is a representative market of the whole markets.
有的病人會對抗生素過敏
the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if the maintenance of the airline has been improved as a result of sending its mechanics to the Seminar, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that就算怎樣，也不怎樣
The survey is based on two isolated examples. The arguer should survey more hospitals of both types.
循環(huán)假設(shè)
The arguer commits a fallacy of begging the question in assuming that …
結(jié)尾：
other possible causes of the …
To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands.
GRE相關(guān)文章：