GRE写作 正确对待的模板

1、GRE写作 正确对待的模板 如何正确对待GRE写作模板?今天给大家带来GRE写作之正确对待的模板，希望能够帮助到大家，下面就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。 (1)早点出自己的模板，什么是模板，应该怎么准备，会在下面的部分为G亲们说明，所以不用着急。 (2)考试的时候顺序把握好，先读题，形成思路和粗略提纲敲首段，中间每段的主旨句和过渡段，最后敲尾段，根据时间，有层次地补充丰满每段的内容检查拼写语法错误，平时练习的时候就是不断地重复这样的顺序，做到非常熟悉。 (3)狂写，练打字速度，尤其是练自己的模板、固定段落、常用事例的打字速度。当初用Issue部分的时间就可以把Issue和Argu全部写完，Iss

2、ue上600，Argu上550;平时正常写的话，Issue可以上700，Argu上600，靠的就是固定段落、事例还有模板的打字特别快，基本上Issue模板250字在几分钟之内就搞定了，Argu的模板就更夸张了，总共才500多字，模板就有一大半，而且基本上几分钟之内就可以完全打完。 在备考新GRE作文的过程中，其实是否准备网络流传的“高频”题目并不重要，而重要的是，无论准备什么题目，都能有正确的思考路径和分析方法，并且能够用正确的语言来表达自己的想法。 The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. F

3、ive 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 munity as a natural parkland. But now that

4、 our town planning mittee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land bees 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

5、 in our munity than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our munity as natural parkland. The argument about Scott Woods being undeveloped land seem to be a well thought out. The munity has thought long and hard about what they

6、wanted to do with the land. They do not want any homes or shopping malls on the land because it would not benefit the munity as a natural parkland. By building the school on the vacant land is not benfiting the munity as natural parkland either. There would be the same type of construction and traff

7、ic. That is very contradictory in itself. I think that the munity would have to meet again and decide exactly was is best for this particular munity and the children in the munity. The presentation sounded so close and shut about what was going to be done about the land that it seemed usless for any

8、body to try to purchase it and do anything with the land. So if the Morganton munity want something such as a school being built on the land that should have been what they voted on in the first place. They look very indecisive and even controlling. These are not very good ways to aomplish or do bus

9、iness. Comments: The opening sentences of this limited response seem to agree with the argument, describing it as well thought out. However, the writer begins to construct a critique in the fourth sentence, identifying and briefly describing one flawed assumption: if the munity members want to retai

10、n natural parkland, they will not be able to do so by building a school on that land. This is the only analysis in the response, marking it as plainly flawed. The remaining five sentences fail to develop or add to this critique. Some are tangential (I think that the munity would have to meet again?)

11、 and others are irrelevant (They look very indecisive and even controlling). The writing demonstrates limited language control. There are missing words, syntax errors, and several grammatical errors. For these reasons, the essay earns the score of 3. The following appeared as a letter to the editor

12、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 munity as a natural

13、 parkland. But now that our town planning mittee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land bees a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would b

14、e no better use of land in our munity than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our munity as natural parkland. The argument that the writer is trying to make contains several flaws. First of all, the writer needs to be clear o

15、n whether or not he or she wishes to keep Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. To be natural and undeveloped suggest that Scott Woods is free from anything man-made. It has not been infected with man-made buildings of any kind. The author suggests that the building of a school in Scoot Woods

16、 would preserve Morgantons natural parkland by preventing the construction of shopping centers and houses. Yet, the building of a school would prevent Morganton from preserving this natural parkland just as shopping centers and houses. While the school may provide substantial acreage for athletic fi

17、elds, it would be still contributing to pollution, the loss of vegetation and overall disruption to the natural ecosystem of Scott Woods. Consequently, the area would not be a natural parkland as the author suggests. Furthermore, the author appeals to the sensitivity of the readers through his discu

18、ssion on the childrens participation in sports. He falsely states that the the childrens use of the athletic fields that the school would provide is the best way to utilize this natural parkland. Again, the author mistakingly feels that athletic fields constitute a natural parkland. Since the author

19、 continuously misuses the word natural parkland, the validity of the letter is weakened. Comments: After acknowledging that the argument contains several flaws, this adequate response identifies a basic problem in the reasoning - the letter writers ambivalence about the desirability of maintaining S

20、cott Woods as natural and undeveloped parkland. The writer recognizes that the arguments confused intentions are indirectly related to a root flaw in the argument: the assumption that construction of new buildings - even school buildings - would not impact the preservation of the parkland. Further, the writer does a petent job of explaining how both of these problems are the result of a lack of clarity about what constitutes a natural parkland. Paragraph 2 identifies an additional weakness in the argument; the writer refuses to