GRE寫作：高分沖刺
gre寫作如何高分沖刺?今天小編給大家?guī)鞧RE寫作：高分沖刺，希望能夠幫助到大家，下面小編就和大家分享，來欣賞一下吧。
GRE寫作：高分沖刺
1.要有可以模仿的文章(最好是帶有說理性的文章)。
2.你要理解這個(gè)文章，理解它的用詞、句子結(jié)構(gòu)、段落結(jié)構(gòu)。
3.這些文章都有正確的中文翻譯。同時(shí)，文章的長度不能超過500字。
怎么模仿，首先要分析文章，分析每一句和上一句是什么關(guān)系。我給大家舉個(gè)例子：美國人寫作文的一個(gè)特點(diǎn)是，通常每段的第一句都包含了整段文字的內(nèi)容，也就是我們常說的topic sentence.。另一個(gè)特點(diǎn)是當(dāng)你寫完一個(gè)句子后，你要問WHY。你提出一個(gè)問題，然后給出一個(gè)圓滿的回答，這就是一篇優(yōu)秀的作文。
具體化的能力
具體化并不代表要寫一個(gè)完整的故事。但是任何一篇文章都要給人一個(gè)具體的意向。通過具體的東西來描述才能給人踏實(shí)的感覺。具體化只要舉出幾個(gè)地方、幾個(gè)名字、幾件小事就可以了。
為什么好多同學(xué)作文中分?jǐn)?shù)很低呢，就是因?yàn)樗岢隽藛栴}卻沒有回答。
你通過不斷地模仿寫作，就可以不斷地糾正語法和詞組錯(cuò)誤。如何把抽象和具體結(jié)合起來是一個(gè)重點(diǎn)，如何在一個(gè)段落中只表達(dá)一個(gè)思想，這是另一個(gè)重點(diǎn)。美國人的判分特點(diǎn)是，如果你在一段中表達(dá)了一個(gè)以上的思想，那你的分?jǐn)?shù)就不會(huì)高了。
分析完一篇文章后，怎么模仿著寫呢?就是看著中文的翻譯，把上面的英文一字不落的寫下來，當(dāng)你實(shí)在想不起來的時(shí)候，再看原文。等到寫完之后，和原文對(duì)照一下，看看是誰寫得漂亮。我剛剛開始模仿寫作的時(shí)候發(fā)現(xiàn)，模仿了幾天后，寫作水平的確提高了。
因?yàn)楦鶕?jù)記憶學(xué)原則，這個(gè)單詞你背過、讀過，它都不能寫在你的文章中間。如果一個(gè)單詞可以經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)在你的腦子和文章中間，那這只證明了一件事，就是你寫過這個(gè)字。但是你自己寫作你不可能用到這個(gè)字，那就只有一個(gè)可能，就是你在模仿文章時(shí)寫過這個(gè)字。如果一個(gè)結(jié)構(gòu)別人寫不出來，你能寫出來，那你的分?jǐn)?shù)就會(huì)高。
通過不斷地模仿你的幾大能力就會(huì)得到提高：
1.你的語法錯(cuò)誤會(huì)越來越少;
2.句子結(jié)構(gòu)能力越來越強(qiáng);
3.用詞能力大大增加。
GRE寫作滿分范文賞析
Six?months?ago?the?region?of?Forestville?increased?the?speed?limit?for?vehicles?traveling?on?the?region's?highways?by?ten?miles?per?hour.??Since?that?change?took?effect,?the?number?of?automobile?accidents?in?that?region?has?increased?by?15?percent.??But?the?speed?limit?in?Elmsford,?a?region?neighboring?Forestville,?remained?unchanged,?and?automobile?accidents?declined?slightly?during?the?same?six-month?period.??Therefore,?if?the?citizens?of?Forestville?want?to?reduce?the?number?of?automobile?accidents?on?the?region's?highways,?they?should?campaign?to?reduce?Forestville's?speed?limit?to?what?it?was?before?the?increase.??
This?argument?does?not?have?any?concrete?information.??It?seems?by?Forestville,?increasing?their?speed?limit?more?accidents?occured.??We?all?know?that?accidents?occur?reguardless?of?what?the?speed?limit?of?the?highway?we?travel.??Fortunately,?Elmsford's?accidents?decreased?during?the?six-months?in?discussion.??This?could?be?because?of?good?weather,?careful?drivers,?or?any?number?of?situations.??On?the?other?hand,?Forrestville?had?an?increase?in?accidents.??The?only?determining?factor?given?was?the?speed?limit?increasing.?This?in?fact?probably?did?play?a?big?role?in?why?there?was?a?15%?percent?increase?in?the?accidents,?but?may?not?be?the?only?factor.???In?order?to?make?an?accurate?judgement?on?why?there?was?an?increase?in?automobile?accidents?the?situation??needs?to?be?researched.?Solid?facts?need?to?be?stated.???Clearly,?to?reduce?the?speed?limit?back?to?normal?in?Forrestville?would?not?eliminate?the?problem.?Comments:?
This?limited?critique?is?plainly?flawed.??The?author?begins?with?a?criticism?about?the?lack?of?"concrete?information"?but?then?fails?to?provide?any?concrete?analysis?in?the?response.??The?writer?cites?the?drop?in?Elmsford's?accidents?but?does?not?develop?any?of?the?reasons?mentioned?to?account?for?the?drop:?"good?weather,?careful?drivers,?or?any?number?of?situations."??
The?writer?then?goes?on?to?discuss?Forestville?and?suggests?that?the?speed?limit?"may?not?be?the?only?factor,"?but?this?point?is?not?developed?either.??The?author?issues?a?generic?call?for?more?research?and?facts?and?offers?an?unsupported?conclusion?of?his?or?her?own:?"Clearly,?to?reduce?the?speed?limit?
would?not?eliminate?the?problem."??Although?the?author?appears?to?know?that?there?is?something?wrong?with?the?argument,?he?or?she?does?not?seem?to?know?how?to?critique?the?argument?in?greater?detail.??
The?response?demonstrates?adequate?control?of?the?elements?of?writing,?but?the?analysis?is?so?underdeveloped?that?it?cannot?earn?a?score?higher?than?3.
GRE寫作滿分范文賞析
Six?months?ago?the?region?of?Forestville?increased?the?speed?limit?for?vehicles?traveling?on?the?region's?highways?by?ten?miles?per?hour.??Since?that?change?took?effect,?the?number?of?automobile?accidents?in?that?region?has?increased?by?15?percent.??But?the?speed?limit?in?Elmsford,?a?region?neighboring?Forestville,?remained?unchanged,?and?automobile?accidents?declined?slightly?during?the?same?six-month?period.??Therefore,?if?the?citizens?of?Forestville?want?to?reduce?the?number?of?automobile?accidents?on?the?region's?highways,?they?should?campaign?to?reduce?Forestville's?speed?limit?to?what?it?was?before?the?increase.??
At?first?look,?this?seems?to?be?a?very?well?presented?arguement.??A?logical?path?is?followed?throughout?the?paragraph?and?the?conclusion?is?expected.??However,?upon?a?second?consideration,?it?is?apparent?that?all?possibilities?were?not?considered?when?the?author?presented?his?conclusion?(or?at?least?that?s/he?did?not?present?all?of?the?possibilities).?There?are?numerous?potential?explanations?for?why?the?number?of?accidents?in?Elmsford?decreased?while?the?number?in?Forestville?increased.??Although?it?seems?logical?to?assume?that?the?difference?in?the?percentage?of?accidents?was?due?to?the?difference?in?whether?or?not?the?speed?limit?had?been?increased?during?the?specified?month,?this?does?not?necessarily?mean?that?the?speed?limit?should?be?reduced?back?to?what?it?originally?was?in?Forestville.??The?author?does?not?state?two?specific?pieces?of?information?that?are?important?before?a?conclusion?such?as?the?one?the?author?made?is?sound.??The?first?is?that?it?is?not?expressed?whether?the?speed?limits?in?the?two?neighboring?regions?had?had?the?same?speed?limit?before?Forestville's?speed?limit?had?been?increased.??If?they?had?originally?been?the?same,?then?it?is?reasonable?to?conclude?that?Forestville's?speed?limit?should?be?reduced?back?to?what?it?was?before?the?increase.??However,?if?the?two?region's?speed?limits?were?initially?different,?then?such?a?conclusion?can?not?be?made.??The?second?piece?of?information?that?is?necessary?for?the?present?argument?is?the?relative?number?of?accidents?in?each?of?the?areas?prior?to?the?increase?in?speed?limit.??For?the?author?to?make?the?presented?conclusion,?the?number?of?accidents?should?have?been?approximately?equal?prior?to?the?increase?in?the?speed?limit?in?Forestville.??If?the?two?missing?pieces?of?information?had?been?presented?and?were?in?the?author's?favor,?then?the?conclusion?that?the?author?made?would?have?been?much?more?sound?than?it?currently?is.??In?conclusion,?the?argument?is?not?entirely?well?reasoned,?but?given?the?information?that?was?expressed?in?the?paragraph,?it?was?presented?well,?and?in?a?logical?order.?Comments:?
This?competent?critique?claims?that?there?are?"numerous?potential?explanations?for?why?the?number?of?accidents?in?Elmsford?decreased?while?the?number?in?Forestville?increased."??However,?the?author discusses?only?two?points:??
--?whether?the?speed?limits?in?the?two?regions?were?originally?the?same;????and?
--?the?number?of?accidents?in?each?region?prior?to?Forestville's????raising?the?speed?limit.??
Although?the?response?appears?at?first?to?be?well?developed,?there?is?much?less?analysis?here?than?the?length?would?suggest.??The?first?third?and?last?third?of?the?essay?are?relatively?insubstantial,?consisting?mainly?of?general?summary?statements?(e.g.,?"A?logical?path????conclusion?is?expected"?and?"If?the?two????more?sound?than?it?currently?is").??The?real?heart?of?the?critique?consists?of?minimal?development?of?the?two?points?mentioned?above.??Therefore,?although?two?important?features?of?the?argument?are?analyzed?and?the?writer?handles?language?and?syntax?adequately,?the?lack?of?substantial?development?keeps?this?critique?from?earning?a?score?higher?than?4.
GRE寫作：高分沖刺相關(guān)文章：
★ 英語寫作