GRE写作高分需要避免哪些问题

千里之行，始于第2页/共2页精品文档推荐GRE写作高分需要避免哪些问题GRE写作高分需要避开哪些问题,我们一起来看看吧，下面我就和大家共享，来观赏一下吧。

GRE写作高分需要避开哪些问题

新GRE写作要避开的几点：

.避开观点重复;不要讲了几遍其实都是一个理由。当你一点就能说明的时候，非要讲三遍就显的有点STUPID了。你要从多个方面来讲道理，而且要尽量把问题详细化。

.避开观点的庸俗化，并考虑US人能否接受的问题。比如说要避开对任何宗教词批判太多。由于你永久搞不懂给你判分的是信什么教的。不能批判任何政治抱负。不能贬低自己所在的国家。US人最厌烦不爱自己国家的人。避开观点的庸俗化，就是我们说的有些东西可以想，但是不能写出来GRE考斯作文规律思路分为两种。一种是问题发挥型，一种是argument/争辩型。

对于问题发挥型题目，你怎么发挥，怎么犯规律错误都没有问题，只要你能保证你观点的正确，并能用详细的事实证明你的观点。而对于argument/争辩型题目就不同了。它的出题方式是给你一段话，这段话后再给出一个总结。然后让你挑出它的规律错误。需要你作的是.它的结论或者对其加以补充。你只要拿出三点理由把它.就行了。这三点理由从哪里找呢，从文章里面找，从文章的周边关系找，从文章的背后找。

下面举一个例子：现在有一种计算机仪表设备，把它安在商用飞机上之后就必定能避开飞机在空中的碰撞。由于一架飞机发出碰撞信号后，另一架飞机就能接收这个信号并准时实行行动，从而避开飞机碰撞。

这里结论就是飞机必定能避开碰撞。你要做的就是.这个结论。它的因果关系是由于安装了仪表所以能够避开碰撞。你要说的是安装了仪表不肯定能避开碰撞。现在你就要找出3点理由来。

1.文章中没有任何统计数据告知我们飞机的碰撞百分之百是商用飞机，因此假如避开碰撞，就要在全部飞行物上安装这种仪表。

2.安装了仪表后，是否需要人来操作。假如是，那么由于有人的缘由，就不能避开碰撞。

3.要是这个仪表系统坏了。

4.也没有谈到气候问题，卫星干扰问题等干扰因素……

所以Argument文章不需要你有文采，也不需要你有多么好的句子结构，它只是要求你的规律没有漏洞。

大家有时间的话务必把AI的提纲都列掉，然后挑重复率高的写。比如ISSUE里面有一道TheGREatestindicatorofanation...。另外有一点很重要的是，特殊是对于A大家在写完几篇文章以后，尽快归纳出针对每一个instruction的模板，question这种可以写成一类，然后背出来。其实老G和新G的区分就在于，老G是一套模板走天下，新G预备4个模板，就这么简洁。以后自己联系的时候，就依据模板来套，写到后来你会发觉，你写出来的文章，不管题目怎么换，写出来的东西看起来都一样，这样Argument算基本练成了。模板最好自己写，依据头几篇写的文章来归纳。比如说我关于specificevidence这种题型，自己归纳的模板。

Theargumentiswellpresentedandappearstoberelativelysoundatthefirstglance,theauthorconcludesthat__________.However,aclosescrutinyabouttheargumentwillrevealthatseveralspecificevidencesshouldbeaddedinordertomaketheargumenttobemorecogentandconvincing,forexample:_________

Initially,theauthormustgiveevidencethat_________.Ifweweretolearnthat_______,itwouldobviouslyweakentheconclusion.Itmayturnouttobethat_____.Tomakehisassuranceeloquent,hemustprovidemorespecificevidencestoconsummatehisargument.

Secondly,inorderto______,weshouldalsobeinformedthat_______.Intheargument,theauthoronlysaidthat__________.Itmayunderminetheargumentthatif-_______.Withoutknowing_______,wecanhardlyaccepttheconclusionthat______

Third,theauthorshouldeliminatethedisturbanceofotherfactors,forexample,heshouldprovideevidencesthat_______.Perhaps_____orperhaps________.Eitherofthesescenarios,iftrue,wouldcastseriousdoubtontheauthor’sclaim.Withoutaccountingforallotherexplanations,thearguercantreasonablyconcludethat___________;U%z$wU$r.fx1ze;Q+s

Tosumup,theargumentisfarfrompowerfulenoughtosubstantiatethat______________Beforeanyfinaldecisionsaremadeabout_____________,muchmorespecificevidencesaretobeputforwardtomaketheauthorsargumentmoreforcefulandcogent.

真正写的时候，先把第一段和最终一段都写了，然后每段写个第一句，列出框架。最好能在第一段把你要写的内容都先简要概括一下：

话题还是回到预备A的过程上，当你归纳出模板以后，接下来要做的事情就很简洁了，找到新老题库的对应表，然后自己照着新题库一题一题地把提纲列出来，不会的看一下老题是怎么写的。这个时候不需要写许多文章，只是归纳提纲就行，记住归纳的时候要把可能发生的状况写出来，由于到了考试的时候想不出可以rival的状况那不是悲剧了，比如这个题中的一个evidence：

ThereasonwhystudentschooseBuckinghamCollege.

Perhapsithasqualifiedteachers.

Perhapstuitionfeeislowerthancollegesatthesamelevel.

等你把这两件事情都做完，A的预备就差不多了，以后就是每天花半个小时左右的时间一遍遍熟识题库。

根据这种方法，我真正预备A的时间只有5天，后来的那段时间都只是每天花半个小时写3篇作文的提纲写的话不用太多，3-4天写一篇保持手感就行了。

关于ISSUE，方法也差不多，主要的问题就是写提纲肯定要认真，把你对这个问题的观点，和引用的例子都写出来，不要想着自己能套一些Roosevelt,King什么的，想想就可以了，没有那么多例子让你套，还是要老狡猾实预备提纲。我写过一套完整的issue和argument的提纲，写的时候例子也放在提纲里，ISSUE跟A也一样，写完一遍提纲，自己重新看，到最终就是训练自己看到一个题，在2分钟以内快速组织出一个比较具体的提纲。这样ISSUE的预备也就差不多了。

GREissue写作优秀实例：意见同与不同

issue1题目：

Wecanusuallylearnmuchmorefrompeoplewhoseviewswesharethanfrompeoplewhoseviewscontradictourown;disagreementcancausestressandinhibitlearning.

通常，我们从与我们意见相同的人身上学到的要比从那些与我们意见相悖的人身上学的东西要多得多;(由于)意见不统一会带来压力并且阻碍学习。

正文：

Frompeoplewhoseviewswesharewegetconfidence,encouragement,andpsychologicalsatisfaction;frompeoplewhoseviewscontradictourownwegetnewangles,freshperspectives,andpertinentadvices.Butexcessiveagreementswouldleadustothemorassofself-complacence;andextremecontradictionswouldweakenourdeterminationoflearning.Thusweshouldfullyrecognizethepotentialdangeroflimitingourvisioninoneofthetwosides.Andonlythroughtheapproachofpayingequalattentiontobothsidescouldwemakefurtherachievementsintheprocessoflearning.

Viewsandideasfrompeopleagreewithusmayraiseourconfidence,strengthenourcourage,andenhanceourpsychologicalsatisfaction.Accordingtocommonsenseandoureverydayexperience,thepropensitytoaccepttheideasfrompeoplewhoagreewithusratherthantheopinionsfrompeopledisagreewithusassociatesstronglywiththenatureofhumanbeings,forwearesocialanimalsanditistheinnerinstinctofustoseekforapprovalofothers.Imagine,whatwouldyoureactiftheworkaccomplishedbyyourarduouseffortsreceivesfiercecriticismornotevenaglance?Youwouldloseyourstrengthtomarchinthelongroadoflearning.

Onthecontrary,agreementsmaycausethefeelingofbeingacceptedandconsented,thuswegainthepsychologicalsatisfactionwhichwillimpulseustolearnmore.Moreover,customarily,wetendtoimitateandshareideasandbehaviorsfromourparents,friends,classmatesandsoforth,whoareinthesamegroupofours.Bythiswayweformknowledgeofourown.Notunderallcircumstanceswecanlearnfrompeoplewhoseviewsweshare.Onlybaseonthepremisesthatalltheviewsofourassentersareauthenticandsincere,however,couldwelearnusefulknowledgefromthem.Onconditionthatpeopleconsentandevenflatterusforcertainpurposeswhichhavenothingtodowithlearning,ourlearningwouldbehinderedinsteadofmotivated.Wewouldbepossessedintheillusiveprideandlimitedinanarrowboundofvision.Consequently,wecanseethatthespeaker’sassertionisincompleteandoversimplified.

Contradictingviewsandideascouldawareusofthemistakesandflawsinourworkwhichwecannotdiscoverbyourselves,bringusfreshanglesandperspectives,andthenmakeourworkmatureandcomplete.Therebythroughthediscussionandcompetitionbothweandthepeopledisagreewithuscouldmakeadvancementsinourlearning.Debateonthesamesubjectmakeitpossibleforhumanbeingstomakemostoftheachievementsandadvancesonfieldsofscience,technology,philosophyandthelike.Ifweseeonlyontheonesideofthecoin,wecouldgetonlyapartialanddistortedknowledgeandviewwhichmightmisleadourlearning.

Also,contradictionmaycausenegativeeffectsundercertainconditions,especiallywhenthedebatebecomesirrationaldenouncementorpersonalattack.Thenourconfidencewouldbeimpairedbythecriticismsandourlearninginhibitedbythestressexcessivecontradictionsbringsus.Disagreementswouldbedetrimentalratherthanbeneficialtoourlearningunderthiscircumstance.

Biasoneachofthetwosidesisdetrimentaltoourlearningforthatagreementsanddisagreementsformaorganicentitywhichcannotbeabsolutelydivided.Overrelianceononesideisblindandunwise.Agreementsbaseonnoevidenceareactuallyflatters;disagreementswithoutrationalreasonsarereprimands.Wewouldbeenmeshedinthewebofself-contentionsewedbyourselvesandcouldnotgoaheadifweandblindedbytheflatters;wewouldbefrozeninthechillynightofdarknesscreatedbyreprimandsandbecamehelplessandhopeless.Wemustpayequalattentionsonbothsidestoseethewholepicture.

Tosumup,ideasofpeoplewhoseviewsweshareandpeoplewhoseviewscontradictourownplaytheirrespectiveroleinourlearning,andnoneofthemshouldbeneglected.Therefore,balancebetweenbothsidesisneeded.Andonlythroughthiswaycouldweachievethefurthergoalinourprocessoflearning.

GREissue写作优秀实例：审查的公正性

题目：

Censorshipisrarely,ifever,justified.

审查很少能够做到公正。

正文：

“Censorship”isawordwhichseemstobeauthoritativeratherthandemocratic,whichimpliesthewillofthegovernorsratherthanthewillofgeneralpeople.Sincetheoccurrenceofthecensorship,whichcouldbetracedbacktotheAncientRome,ithasbeenplayinganimportantpartinthedomesticaffairswhilearousingapplauseandcondemnationaswell.Heretheourgovernmentfacesadilemma,isitfairtocarryonthecensorshipatthecostofsacrificingpartofdemocracy,orjustopenthegatelettingflowsofideasandthoughtsin,attheriskoflosingitsownrampart.

Sincecensorshipsuggestanactofchangingorsuppressingspeech,writingoranyotherformsofexpressionthatiscondemnedassubversiveofthecommongood,itmusthaveacloserelationshipwiththeonewhoappliessuchsupervision,andtheword“commongood”shouldberedefinedunderdifferentconditions.Thereistimewhenwewereallunderapowerfulmonarchy,andthe“commongood”isthe“monarchgood”,thenthecensorshipitselfistheinstrumentofthemonarchwhichsolelydependedonthewillofthemonarch;intheMiddleAges,boththeRomanCatholicandtheProtestantChurchespracticedcensorshipthatseemedtobeoppressivetoanyideaschallengingthedoctrinesofchurchesandtheexistenceofGod;evennow,insomeauthoritativecountries,thecensorshipisusedtoruleitspeoplebyrestrictingtheirminds,ofcourse,forthestabilityoftheirgoverningoverthepeople.Withtheseregards,censorshipitselfisquestionedattherationalityofexisting,regardlessofthepracticesmadebythedemocraticgovernment,whilethejusticeofthedemocraticgovernmentisquitedoubtable.

Thematterconcerningisnotonlywhopracticesthecensorshipbutalsohowitispracticed.Sincedifferentmenmakedifferentcommentsonthesameworkofart,forexample,itishardtosetupameasurebywhichwecoulddecidewhetheroneshouldbeprohibited,especiallytoth