GRE写作高分具体方法心得讲解

GRE写作中，考生常需要面对逻辑思维方面的考验，特别是写作中的ARGUMENT题目，下面小编就和大家分享GRE作文审题技巧深度精析，来欣赏一下吧。

GRE作文审题技巧深度精析

GRE写作审题需学会判断事实和观点

在GRE写作部分的两道题目中，ISSUE题需要考生自己归纳并给出观点，之后围绕这个观点进行展开论述。这道题目的要求一般来说是比较清晰明确的。而ARGUMENT则会给出一段文字内容较长的文本材料，考生需要先自己读完这段内容，再从中找出各种逻辑错误问题，并自己组织出一篇反驳素材各种逻辑漏洞的驳论文。这对于考生的审题要求就比较高了，很多同学面对ARGUMENT题目，都存在找不到逻辑漏洞，或是找到的逻辑漏洞并不重要只是微小错误，而一些主要的逻辑错误却抓不住的情况，这样写出来的ARGUMENT驳论文自然缺乏力度拿不到高分。而为了提升大家的审题精准度，学会判断题目素材中的事实和观点就变得很重要了。

学会判断事实和观点对写作审题有什么帮助?

那么说到学会判断事实和观点对写作审题的具体帮助，其实主要还是集中在ARGUMENT部分，可以帮助考生分清题目中哪些部分可能存在逻辑漏洞，而哪些地方并没有太多值得质疑的地方。简单来说，如果是事实，那么这些内容就是客观存在，不存在争议的，这样的内容自然不会有逻辑漏洞。而如果是观点，那就是带有一定主观色彩，考生无法确定是否为真，可以被争论的内容，这些内容中一般都会有可以反驳的余地。

实例讲解GRE写作题目中的事实和观点

那么在GRE作文的题目中，哪些部分是事实哪些是观点呢?下面我们通过一道ETS官方题库中的ARGUMENT作文题目来为大家做具体解读：

The vice president for human resources at Climpson Industries sent the following recommendation to the company's president.

"In an effort to improve our employees' productivity, we should implement electronic monitoring of employees' Internet use from their workstations. Employees who use the Internet inappropriately from their workstations need to be identified and punished if we are to reduce the number of work hours spent on personal or recreational activities, such as shopping or playing games. Installing software on company computers to detect employees' Internet use is the best way to prevent employees from wasting time on the job. It will foster a better work ethic at Climpson and improve our overall profits."

这道题目讲的是某公司人力资源部门副主席发出的一份建议信，在这段题目素材中，属于事实的部分是：

1. 发建议信要求添加对员工网络的监控

2. 员工在工作时间使用网络购物或玩游戏

属于观点的部分是：

1. 监控员工网络情况有助提升生产力

2. 在工作时间不正当使用网络的员工应该被惩处

3. 监控网络是防止员工划水最好的方法

4. 这么做可以培养工作道德提升公司整体利益

通过这样对题目内容中事实和观点的整理，相信大家就能看出来，这段材料中哪些地方存在更多更明显的逻辑漏洞了，显然都是观点部分。因为事实部分本身没有什么可以反驳的地方，都是客观发生的事情。而观点中则基本上都是这位副主席自己主观臆断的看法思想。同时观点部分中逻辑漏洞最大的地方也很明显，那就是第三条“监控网络是防止员工划水最好的方法”了，因为直接使用了最高级，所以这个观点太过武断绝对，也是最值得反驳的。然后提升生产力、培养工作道德等等观点也有不少值得反驳的地方，这样就可以很轻松地找到几个主要的逻辑漏洞。而一旦大家整理清楚了题目的逻辑问题，之后文章改怎么写自然也就一目了然了。

GRE写作满分范文

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英亩数,面积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."

This letter to the editor begins by stating the reasons the residents of Morganton voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state. The letter states that the entire community could benefit from an undeveloped parkland. The residents of the town wanted to ensure that no shopping centers or houses would be built there. This, in turn, would provide everyone in the community with a valuable resource, a natural park.

The letter then continues by addressing the issue of building a school on the land. The author reasons that this would also benefit the entire community as a natural parkland since much of the land would be devoted to athletic fields. The author of the letter comes to the conclusion that building a school on the land would be the best thing for everyone in the community.

This letter is a one-sided argument about the best use of the land known as Scott Woods. The author may be a parent whose child would benefit from a new school, a teacher who thinks a school would boost the community, or just a resident of Morganton. Regardless of who the author is, there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore.

Using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for a natural parkland. While all the members of the community could potentially benefit from a parkland, only a percentage of the population would realistically benefit from a new school. The author fails to recognize people like the senior citizens of the community. What interest do they have in a new school? It only means higher taxes for them to pay. They will likely never to and utilize the school for anything. On the other hand, anyone can go to a park and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness. The use of the land for a school would destroy the benefit of a park for everyone. In turn, it would supply a school only to groups of people in exactly the right age range, not too young or too old, to reap the benefits.

Another point the author stresses is that the use of the land for things like athletic fields somehow rationalizes the destruction of the park. What about children who don't play sports? Without the school, they could enjoy the land for anything. A playing field is a playing field. Children are not going to go out there unless they are into sports. There are many children in schools who are not interested in or are not able to play sports. This is yet another group who will be left out of the grand benefits of a school that the author talks about.

The author's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this...""is easily arguable. The destruction of Scott Woods for the purpose of building a school would not only affect the ambience of Morganton, it would affect who would and would not be able to utilize the space. If the residents as a whole voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state, this argument will not sway their decision. The use of the land for a school will probably benefit even less people than a shopping center would. The whole purpose of the vote was to keep the land as an asset for everyone. The only way to do this is to keep it in an undeveloped state. Using the land for a school does not accomplish this.

Comments:

This outstanding response begins somewhat hesitantly; the opening paragraphs summarize but do not immediately engage the argument. However, the subsequent paragraphs target the central flaws in the argument and analyze them in almost microscopic detail.

The writer's main rebuttal points out that "using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for natural parkland." Several subpoints develop this critique, offering perceptive reasons to counter the argument's unsubstantiated assumptions. This is linked to a related discussion that pointedly exposes another piece of faulty reasoning: that using land for athletic fields "rationalizes the destruction of the park."

The extensively developed and organically organized analysis continues into a final paragraph that takes issue with the argument's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this."

Diction and syntax are varied and sophisticated, and the writer is fully in control of the standard conventions. While there may be stronger papers that merit a score of 6, this response demonstrates insightful analysis, cogent development, and mastery of writing. It clearly earns a 6.

GRE写作满分范文

"The media (books, film, music, television, for example) tend to create rather than reflect the values of a society."

The media does tend to create rather than reflect the values of a society.

One example of this observation is the fact that the media is owned, controlled and used my a segment of the population that is usually out of touch with the realities of groups within the society it covers. . . For example, the gangster rappers have gained a reputation for being women hating, anti-authority, and violent. Before, the MTV and V-H1 and CNN provided coverage to these groups, theyre were limited to street sales and specific areas that w ere not mainstream. Thanks to national coverage in print and broadcast, these groups becaome more popular because it was "different" and taboo. The lyrics, dances, and fashion statements portrayed became big money items and surburbanited people were intrigued withe this counter-culture. They began to act, talk and behave like the lyrics espressed. Continued media fenzy contributed to kids wanting to become more familiar with this culture, thereby creating an atmosphere or arena for this counter-culturre to legitimate. The media created these values but these vlaues of the gangster rapeer do not reflect the actual values of the society.

Another example of the media creating the values of a society is the coverage of the modeling industry. Clearly, most women neither want to or can look like Kate Moss. The typical Calvin Klein male models do not appear the way most men are naturally. This look is both unhealthy and atypical of most humans. Nevertheless, thanks to the media's coverage, including magazine advocating, newspapers ads, and commercials to sell products, a large portion of this society has done everything from liposuction to becoming bullimic to attain a supermodel look. If the media does not cover the indutrsy in such a manner, a growing number of people would not care about the skeletal look of kate Moss or any other unrealistic physical attrubutes that are usually genetically or surgically produced. The media creates this image of how men and women should look thereby creating the values of this society. These values would be totally different without the media's negative influence.

Lastly, when the media chooses to focus on pervers and negative, and unhealthy aspects of a society, then that part of society becomes the "values' of that society. Gangster rap or anorexic models could not possibly have made it without the media's concentrated coverage of either.

Comments:

This response presents an adequate discussion of the topic. After a succinct announcement of the writer's position on the issue, the paper develops two relevant examples: musicians ("gangster rappers") who have negatively influenced people's behavior and superstar models who have negatively influenced people's self-image.

Although the examples are well chosen and support the writer抯 position, they are not always clearly explained. For example, the writer claims that "most women neither want to nor can look like Kate Moss" but then contradicts that claim by explaining that "a large portion of this society has done everything from liposuction to becoming bullimic to attain a supermodel look."

In general, the vocabulary is clear, but not particularly precise. Sentences are formed correctly, but they lack effective variety. Grammatical and mechanical errors occur, but they do not seriously interfere with meaning. In almost every way, this is an adequate response and earns a score of 4.