GRE寫作評分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)及分?jǐn)?shù)權(quán)重細(xì)節(jié)解讀
很多考生對于新GRE寫作兩個部分的計分方式不是十分了解，因此在備考中也很容易搞錯學(xué)習(xí)重點，缺乏足夠的針對性。下面小編就和大家分享GRE寫作評分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)及ISSUE/ARGUMENT分?jǐn)?shù)權(quán)重細(xì)節(jié)解讀，來欣賞一下吧。
GRE寫作評分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)及ISSUE/ARGUMENT分?jǐn)?shù)權(quán)重細(xì)節(jié)解讀
GRE寫作算分基本公式介紹
新GRE寫作要求考生在30分鐘+30分鐘內(nèi)分別完成兩篇文章，它是美國所有作文考試中時間最長而質(zhì)量要求最高的一類作文考試。GRE寫作的記分方式是這樣的，兩篇作文總分都是六分，計算公式為你的得分=(Issue的得分+Argument的得分)/2，最終的計分是以0.5分為一個格。
GRE寫作不同題型要求簡介
1. Issue task (30min)，要求作者根據(jù)所給題目，完成一篇表明立場的邏輯立論文。
2. Argument task (30min)，要求考生分析所給題目，完成一篇駁論文，指出并且有力的駁斥題目中的主要邏輯錯誤。
GRE作文兩篇文章分?jǐn)?shù)權(quán)重分析
首先GRE寫作兩個部分在總分中的權(quán)重是一樣的。新GRE作文中有兩個項目，最后出的GRE作文分?jǐn)?shù)是一個，所以如何進行GRE作文算分呢?由于AA的寫作不牽涉自己觀點的展開，只須指出作者邏輯上的漏洞，因此在經(jīng)過訓(xùn)練以后，寫起來并不困難;而AI的寫作需要自己展開自己設(shè)立的觀點，不但需要邏輯上的洞察能力，還需要論證觀點的能力，語言組織的能力，因此對于中國考生來講比較困難，難以短期內(nèi)有較大提高。
但是這兩個部分在總分中的權(quán)重是一樣的，因此考生的策略應(yīng)該是盡量提高AI部分的寫作能力而力保AA部分滿分(或高分)。因為如果AA部分滿分的話，AI部分只需爭取在4分以上就可以保證整體作文分?jǐn)?shù)在5分以上。
ETS寫作評分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)概述
參照ETS評過分的范文，我們不難發(fā)現(xiàn)：無論是ISSUE還是ARGUMENT在評分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)上都有共同之處。
1. 觀點要有深度，論證要有說服力;
2. 組織要有條理，表達清晰準(zhǔn)確;
3. 語言流利，句式復(fù)雜，詞匯豐富。
這三條分別說的是行文的“思想性”、“結(jié)構(gòu)性”和“表達性”，眾多高分作文的考生大凡都在這三個方面做得很好，我們理所當(dāng)然也要從這里入手，采取“各個擊破”的方法解剖GRE作文的本質(zhì)，從而得到一個理想分?jǐn)?shù)。
GRE寫作范文
"Wisdom is rightfully attributed not to people who know what to look for in life but to people who know what to overlook."
Everyone can agree with this issue or not. I think everyone can have arguments to support it and arguments to not support it. It's one of that issue that is not true for everyone. I think if you know what to look for in your life maybe all your efforts can be very concentrated on certain things with the result of obtain what you planned to have in your life, with the result of being satisfied more than people who ask themselves any kind of questions prior to doing anything or prior to think about anything. These factors summarize to display truth about the issue and the discussion. People can disagree if they choose it. Now the question is wisdom belongs to those who know what to look for or to those who know what to overlook and in this behavior they can touch or stop the widom of other people?
Comments:
This response presents a fundamentally deficient discussion of the issue.
The first portion of the response, while referring to "this issue," never clearly identifies the issue and, instead, contains statements that could be attributed to any number of topics. As such, there is little evidence of the ability to organize and develop a coherent analysis of the stated claim. The final statement essentially rephrases the topic as a question and seems to try to interpret its meaning, but -- without an explanation -- the ending merely adds to the overall confusion.
The severe and persistent errors in language and sentence structure add to the overall incoherence and the score of 1.
GRE寫作滿分范文
The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.
"Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."
The author's argument is weak. Though he believes Scott Woods benefits the community as an undeveloped park, he also thinks a school should be built on it. Obviously the author is not aware of the development that comes with building a school besides the facilities devoted to learning or sports. He does not realize that parking lots will take up a substantial area of property, especially if the school proposed is a high school. We are not given this information, nor the size of the student body that will be attending, nor the population of the city itself, so it is unclear whether the damage will be great or marginal. For a better argument, the author should consider questions like what sort of natural resources are present on the land that will not remain once the school is built? Are there endangered species whose homes will be lost? And what about digging up the land for water lines? It is doubtful whether the integrity of Scott Woods as natural parkland can be maintained once the land has been developed. It is true that a school would probably not cause as much damage as a shopping center or housing development, but the author must consider whether the costs incurred in losing the park-like aspects of the property are worth developing it, when there could be another, more suitable site. He should also consider how the city will pay for the property, whether taxes will be raised to compensate for the expense or whether a shopping center will be built somewhere else to raise funds. He has not given any strong reasons for the idea of building a school, including what kind of land the property is, whether it is swampland that will have to be drained or an arid, scrubby lot that will need extensive maintenance to keep up the athletic greens. The author should also consider the opposition, such as the people without children who have no interest in more athletic fields. He must do a better job of presenting his case, addressing each point named above, for if the land is as much a popular community resource as he implies, he will face a tough time gaining allies to change a park to a school.
Comments:
After describing the argument as "weak," this strong response goes straight to the heart of the matter: building a school is not (as the argument seems to assume) innocuous; rather, it involves substantial development. The essay identifies several reasons to support this critique. The writer then points to the important questions that must be answered before accepting the proposal. These address
-- the costs versus the benefits of developing Scott Woods
-- the impact of development on Scott Woods
-- the possibility of "another, more suitable site"
The generally thoughtful analysis notes still more flaws in the argument:
-- whether the school is necessary
-- whether the selected site is appropriate
-- whether some groups might oppose the plan
Although detailed and comprehensive, the writer's critique is neither as fully developed nor as tightly organized as required for a 6 essay. The response exhibits good control of language, although there is some awkward phrasing (e.g., ".??爂aining allies to change a park to a school"). Overall, this essay warrants a score of 5 because it is well developed, clearly organized, and shows facility with language.
GRE寫作相關(guān)文章：
