GRE寫作：寫作論據(jù)的技巧
GRE寫作論據(jù)的技巧你們了解了嗎?今天小編給大家?guī)鞧RE寫作論據(jù)的技巧，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：寫作論據(jù)的技巧
例證是第一推薦的論證方法。首先寫作文不像做數(shù)學題目：照著公理定律往下一步步推就行了。現(xiàn)實世界中放之四海而皆準的東西寥寥無幾，用邏輯的方法推演往往會使文章顯得說服力不強。其次，推理對語言的要求往往比敘事要高得多;要是再用英文寫作，犯錯誤的概率就更大了。再次，雖說字數(shù)不是最重要的，但一定的字數(shù)對于想拿高分的同學還是非常必要的;而從字數(shù)上來考慮，例證要占優(yōu)勢。
每一個argument都有它的獨特性，關鍵是通過總結(jié)模版了解怎樣論述批駁一個觀點，說明一個問題的思路很重要，針對性也很重要。有的題目，如果用例子來說明，會更好一些，事實勝于雄辯嗎。
文章有沒有說服力，其實例子幾個就夠了。所舉例子一定要能充分證明論點，因為例子不好不恰當幾乎是每篇文章都有的問題。關鍵是能不能靈活的應用，能不能服務于論點，還有就是生活中身邊的例子我們最最熟悉的那些才是最生動的，最獨特的，也是最有說服力的，尤其是教育類能用上很多。一般最有說服力的不是那些放之四海皆準的閃光句型。例子是很個性化的東西，大家都用一樣的例子，又有什么意思?例子的選擇不一定必須是名人名言或名人的事跡，也不一定非得投老外的口味，用外國的例子，身邊的小事也可以的，能充分證明觀點即可。
使用和自己生活、專業(yè)結(jié)合比較多的例子。比較好的原因有二：一是自己比較熟悉，可以自圓其說，二是就是自己的東西，不用花太多心思去背。當然了，這不是說，不需要你去擴充你的例子，而是要有針對性的去擴充，有一些可以普遍使用的例子還是應該熟練掌握的?？梢哉倚┻@種用途廣泛的例子儲備。
GRE寫作滿分范文賞析
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."
Since the residents are changing the original statement that complies with the conditions of what an undeveloped site is, it is their responsibility to make sure that certain restrictions are followed. According to the definition of undeveloped land, keeping the natural elements and avoiding the tearing down of this elements is an issue to consider even if it is a school built on the site.
Even though the residents originally wanted to keep the property undeveloped and unbuilt, the fact that they emphasize that this area will subtantially be devoted to athletic fields, strongly supports the idea of the residents using the land for similar activities than that of the public parkland, . Moreover, the fact that the residents mentioned the community as being one where children will be the main participants of this area is persuasive enough to make this argument a strong one.
Comments:
This response is seriously flawed. The first paragraph obliquely addresses the argument made in the topic, but stops short of logical analysis. The second paragraph agrees with the argument and supports its assumptions. In essence, the writer exhibits an uncritical acceptance of the argument.
Aside from a few minor errors, the writer has control over syntax, grammar, and the conventions of standard written English. This response, though, warrants a score of 2, because it offers no discernible analysis of the logic of the argument.
GRE寫作滿分范文賞析
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：寫作論據(jù)的技巧相關文章：