GRE写作中折射出的美国文化

如何杜绝GRE写作ISSUE的片面论证呢?参加过GRE考试的同学，都知道GRE写作的ISSUE是有很大难度的，不容易取得高分。下面小编就和大家分享GRE写作立论ISSUE避免观点片面3个方法介绍，希望能够帮助到大家，来欣赏一下吧。

GRE写作立论ISSUE避免观点片面3个方法介绍

GRE写作论点思路指导

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

从这个instructions可以看出，我们绝不能单纯地从正负观点去展开文章。因为，它明确说了你需要在写作中讨论“命题”中的陈述在何种情况下成立“true”，在何种情况下不成立”not hold true”。如果你在写作时仍然持有单一观点，你最后的得分可想而知。但是，实际情况是，对于大多数中国考生来讲，他们往往受困于单一观点“黑白分明”的思维定式，不善于从多角度分析一个问题。而这里各位考生需要明白，ETS对于GRE高分作文有一个很重要也是最基本的要求，那就是complexity，也就是“立场和角度的多样化”。为了去应对这样的写作要求，我在这里介绍几种实用且又符合instructions要求的破题方式。

GRE写作论证方法介绍：融合对立选项平衡观点

很多题目总是会列出两个对象，接受一个抛弃另一个，这个时候可以找寻题设中两个认为对立的对象之间的联系，指出两者是共存的。

例如：

It is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value.

1.艺术品本身实际上就有很深刻的内涵和永恒的价值，同时批评家可以让大家明白艺术品的价值在哪里。

2. 那些流传远久有永恒价值的艺术都是批评家们帮助筛选出来的。

因此，这两个对象是不矛盾的。

GRE写作论证方法介绍：关键词分离写

很多题目中会出现两个对象，从表面上看，它们似乎是一致的，但实际上他们之间存在差异。对于这样的题目，我们可以肯定一个对象，而否定另一个。

例如：

Technologies not only influence but actually determine social customs and ethics.

首先，我们可以看出，题目中的两个对象customs (风俗)和 ethics(伦理)实际上是有很大差异的。因此，科技对他们的影响力也绝对不会是一样的。

1.肯定 customs

customs是可以被科技改变的，比如很多典礼和文化还有迷信都因为科学的进步而废除了，还是有很多传统被赋予了新的含义。

2.否定 ethics

ethics是很难被科技改变的，无论科技怎么变，道德是数千年以来人类共同承认的东西，是不会随着科技的发展而改变的，反过来是道德影响科技的发展。

GRE写作论证方法介绍：定义模糊关键词

很多题目的key point就在于如何定义关键词，题目给出的概念不够明晰的时候，可以有不同的理解，而不同的理解就可以有不同的方向破题。

例如：

"facts are stubborn things. They cannot be altered by our wishes, or our inclinations."

我们可以看出，本题中的 “facts”意义就非常模糊。因此，我们可以通过对于其不同定义来题目。

1.如果fact作为一种自然客观规律，这样的fact是我们无法改变的，比如所有的生物终将死亡。时间是不能倒退的，这些是我们通过亲身感受可以感知到的，无论怎么努力，这些事实是不可能改变的。

2.如果把fact理解为记录的史实，那么fact是有可能改变的。诚然发生过的事情不可以改变，但是历史本来就不可能完全真实的记录已经发生的事实。这样的情况下“fact”很多时候都是被改变的。

GRE写作高分范文：政治领袖

Unlike great thinkers and great artists, the most effective political leaders must often yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise.

不同于伟大的思想家和艺术家，最杰出的政治领袖通常都必须为了妥协而屈从于大众的意见并且放弃原则。

GRE写作范文：

With the respect of history, today’s democratic structure of politic roots deeply in ancient Greek philosophers’ advocation for the respect of public and individual beings,their admiration of the egalitarian, and the eagerness for justice as well as the electoral system specially devised to surpvise those in power. The Renaissance taking place in Europe and the democratic Revolution booted up by Napoleon in France both have produced great thinkers who demand the restriction of the politicians’ power and authority, labeling the end of an era in which politicians could lay their hands on almost every objects of demand. Driven by this trend, the contemporary politicians ostensibly deprived of certain freedom enjoyed by most artists and scientists could no longer behave in the way they would like to. These people, taking the responsibility of the democratic government, are restrained from several aspects. These restriction mainly comes from the public’s desire and different groups’ attitudes.

Although being neglected sometimes, the artists and the scientists still adhere to their own responsibilities, appear undisturbed and display astonishing indifference to the public. Such right is deserved as to artists and scientists, since their insightful thoughts and complicated feeling about life far go beyond what normal people may achieve.Frustrated and deterred by these maestros, publics turn to the other extreme―ignoring these great thinkers and even cursing them as heretics that destroy the current harmony. Again, scientists and artists enjoy the freedom to obliterate the influence laid on them by the mundane world since their interests are just focused on the exploration of the purity of the truth and reciprocating the perfect memory of the past or wonderful visions about future, rather than caring for the public’s benefits.

During such process, they just jump out of the world and objectively describe it, any scorns or restrictions are treated as part of the object they are proceeding, and this is just the hits of their successes. Sometimes, certain behavior that even force the community members away from communicating with these elites are taken as pride in that artists and scientists could employ their free time to continue their interest.

On the other hand, never would the politician own such comparatively broad freedom. As for a politician, the key to success in politics is to gain and maintain political power.Such power comes from certain identification of the public morality with the politician’s private one and the balance of different groups’ benefits and demands. Consequently,the politician’s attitudes, behavior and even the life style are tightly restricted for fear that any diversion from public’s taste may conduce to losing authority which is a real tragedy for a politician. To be an effective political leader excludes the opportunity that a politician may taste the freedom of the same merits as that enjoyed by artists and scientists, the freedom characterd by consciously seperating oneself from commentary and neglecting the demands made by majority. The successful leadership could be achieved by submerging oneself into the public and being sufficiently prepared for sacrificing some freedom for the majority’s benefits.

It is always funny to imagine what will happen to a special politician who could share a scientist or an artist’s freedom. When this politician is bored at the legitimate meeting that is being broadcast by media agencies, he escape to have a chess with his child.Subsequently, critics begin to accumulate the dissatisfaction of the public to attack this leader’s lacking responsibility of the public affairs. Moreover, he may again utilize the freedom to isolate himself from the public pressure by flying out to have a summer holiday. Then, only one thing can be assured, our special politician is deprived of the right to initiate his power which is a symbol of the end of his political life.

The development of technology and recognition of our society require both politicians and insightful thinkers. However, the democratic system of our contemporary world fixes two distinct sets of freedom that could enjoyed by them. While we agree that artists and scientists enjoy the comparatively broad one, we can not expect the political leaders to have opportunity to taste it.

GRE写作高分范文：想法付诸行动的困难性

It is easy to welcome innovation and accept new ideas. What most people find difficult, however, is accepting the way these new ideas are put into practice.

拥护革新和接受新想法很简单。但是在大多数人们看来，最困难的是接受把这些新想法付诸实现的方式。

GRE写作范文：：

The writer of the issue connotates an ironic phenomenon: though innovation is required in our era and eulogized by most people, application of it is clannished vehemently because of the fear of failure and the possibility of obtained possession and tradition impairing. The author grasps the paradox psychology of most people and pertinently reveals a universal mentality.

As is known that innovation may bring big progress and result in even a revolutionary transition of a society: the elevated efficiency of work, the ameliorated life, the enticing fruit of new technology and so on. Following with innovation of the second industrial revolution, great changes took place and immediately a renewed world unfolded before us with the application of its fruits. Seeing unimaginable profits and the magic power, who (including the society and government) can suppress their agitating desire to restrict development of innovation?

Unfortunately, innovation doesn't always follow the people's will and always acts like an uncontroled horse running in the plain. Worrying about the side-effect, people have to hold their desire back but admire those who are brave enough to taste crabs for the first time. Not everyone possesses the same courage as Biil Gate's, who dare invest on a fresh field and give up the chance of studying in Harvard University, which is the dream of most aggressive young people. Often, pondering what they have already possessed with what they might get from innovation, most people prefer the former to the latter, even content to sacrifice the latter to ensure the integer of the former. For example, a department may enroll those who are not very deft in the work but behave complaisant before higher-ups and deny to those who stick to their innovational opinion obstinately. After all, it is required more to cooperate with others harmoniously and conform to the traditional rules nowadays than to creat a new law according to individual penchant, in any company and corporation.

Maybe, some one argues that, how to cultivate innovation if personality should abdicate to interests of collective? Does the statement above alludes that employees should do nothing but keep silent and follow what the higher-ups dictated, strangling their inspiration to accord to the criterion today? No doubt, such supposition is rediculous. I mean that employees should try to approach their original though to tenet of the collective, not attempt to disobey the existed norm, respect suggestion and supposition of others and circumspect the innovation and then discuss with all the members in the company. That is, responsibility should be taken before the innovation is applied to practice.

Of course, many people don't have the ability that controling their compulsion of carrying their innovation into application. It doesn't lack of people who dare not apply innovation, and people who hold innovational thought are not scarc either, however,those who possess both of the two abilities and are lucky enough to encounter a proper opportunity to release their innovation is very few. The seperation of spirit of application and creation of innovation is the root of the the strange phenomenon, that innovation and new ideas are here and there while the acceptance and combination of them with application is too little to be heard.