怎样储备GRE写作素材

为什么gre考试写作成绩这么差?下面小编就和大家分享拉低gre写作分数的原因，希望能够帮助到大家，来欣赏一下吧。

拉低gre写作分数的原因

原因1：

开头冗长，绕来绕去，不知所云。摆一堆华丽而没有实质内容的句子，然后突然写出自己的观点，这也会导致gre写作分数不高!

原因2：

开头和主体段的第一段混为一谈。有同学会直接写“我同意……观点因为……”一句话给出观点，然后就直接开始写第一点原因。这样的文章结构不清晰，在阅卷人眼中马上被打上结构不清的标签，如果再犯两个语法错误，那就别想翻身了。

原因3：

主体没有分段，把所有的原因糅合在一起，让读者去自己理清条理。英语和中文不一样。英语是作者责任制(writer-responsible),中文是读者责任制(reader-responsible)。也就是说写英文，作者需要保证读者能明白自己写的是什么，如果读者不明白，那就是你作者的责任。而在中文中则正好相反，我想怎么写就怎么写，读不懂是你读者的问题。

原因4：

主体段每段中没有主题句(topic sentence)，或者一个明显的主题意思。我经常看到有人说了一堆例子，却不明白他要这些例子说明什么。其实，只要在每个段落前加一个很简短的句子，告诉别人你在说什么，就会使文章变得很清楚。

原因5：

新gre写作中的主体段有主题句，但是没有对主题句进行进一步解释，而是直接摆例子，这样会显得文章非常的唐突。

原因6：

gre写作有开头，但是在开头作者没有给出观点，而是在结尾给出观点。天道gre备考攻略提示，对于这种写法，也有争议，讲英语的人也在争论是不是世界上所有的人都应该按照英语的文体写。一般的结论是认为，这取决于你的读者，如果你的读者是英语为母语的人，那么还是按照他们的习惯写为好，不要追求什么神秘感，一定要等到最后才给出观点。对于托福gre的作文，还是规矩点比较好。对于其他的文章看老师的要求，我的老师就要求我在写某种论文的时候不要在开头给出观点，而是在结尾提出观点。

GRE写作高分范文：实用的意义

Practicality is now our great idol, which all powers and talents must serve.Anything that is not obviously practical has little value in today's world.

GRE写作范文：

In today’s society idealism seems to become an ideology that is marginalized and practicality is our great idol, thus, the speaker asserts that anything that is not practical bears little value. I admit that being practical is the wide-accepted dogma in order to survive in this world, but by going too far to claim that anything that is not practical has little value is against the empirical observation as well as the general stimulus that push the human society forward.

Admittedly, practicality has become a cult in today’s society. Too often do we hear people talk about being practical whenever they come to make important decisions or choose between several alternatives. The deep-rooted cause underlying this phenomenon is that with the development of modern society, the emphasis is placed more on financial gaining, quick fame, sensible choice and so forth. Our society is rather stable compared with that of the last century when war, violence, human right movements has become the symbol of that period. People are enjoying this peaceful environment with less crucial missions rested upon them and as a result, they shift from idealism to struggle for the common well being of mankind to the practical concept of individual achievement.

This ideology has its merits since after all the disaster and upheaval that our human race has undergone, it is judicious to focus on the economic aspect of things in order to tackle the most important social problems such as poverty, hunger and environmental problems which all deserve us to sit down and work out practical solutions. On the personal level, being practical is how a person would possibly succeed in his career or personal life. One is likely to make sensible decisions for his education and job choice on the basis of practical consideration of his own strength and weakness and careful analysis of the prospect of research direction and job market. Even those in power and intellects need to consider practically since hasty decision built upon pure ideal meditation would hardly find its way in the modern society and is doom to failure.

Agreeing with the speaker that practicality has become the great idol in our society, I am strongly against his point that anything that is not practical has little value. Even in today’s society, idealism is by no means relegated to the place of total neglect and disregard. For one thing, in history, so much achievement is the outcome of several generations’ struggle such as fighting for equality for women, human rights movement,etc. In today’s society, practicality is the way we can obtain our goal but idealism offers the philosophical explanation of why we should set this as our goal and the clear the ultimate value of our pursuing. What is more, by totally fixed one's eyes upon the practical aspect of things, we face the danger of neglecting one important part of our pursuit, that is the mental enjoyment brought out by idealism. If we have a clear goal set in mind and put practical endeavor at the same time, the result would be more satisfactory and valuable.

To sum up, I agree with the speaker insofar as the wide acceptance of practicality is considered. Being practical is the tenet of modern society and it does shed light on the wise way of doing things and obtaining goals, no matter in the personal or social level.But the speaker goes too far by claiming that it is the only valuable ideology in society.I am strongly against this idea since in history or at present, we human beings still need the philosophical explanation to clear our goal and to provide motivation. In this aspect, idealism would never be replaced with pure practical consideration. Otherwise,human society will be replete with insensible people directed by economic profit and quick fame and recognition.

GRE写作高分范文：政治的统一与分歧

The goal of politics should not be the pursuit of an ideal, but rather the search for common ground and reasonable consensus.

政治的目的不应该是追求一种理想，而是寻求共同点和合理的一致。

GRE写作范文：

I safely agree with the speaker's argument that the search for common ground and reasonable consensus is the goal of politics. But I am reserved to support his or her idea that the goal of politics should not be the pursuit of an ideal. The pursuit of an ideal is not doomed to conflict with the search for consensus.

Politics, as it was defined is an art of balancing, that is to keep subtle balance between different parties, which represent vested interests of different groups, hold different ideologies, to harmonize disparate social organization such as Green peace organization and Arms manufacture association, to concert different development plan and the like. Various interests of different groups intertwined together, forming a huge net. It is this net that restrains any individual part's self-intention and possible partial proposal, makes the leaders think over before leap. In this way, the policy making would be more stable and reasonable, meanwhile the majority’s interests could be taken care of. A convincing example in this point is the nomination of the candidate of President in certain party. One must be selected from tens of candidates who are on the behalf of different groups. At first, every group may name his own representatives,but the winner is single. After seeing his nomination is not supported by the majority,thus has no chance to win, they will compromise on the premise that their core interests are ensured, select the one who can be accepted by most groups if not all to reach reasonable consensus, This interacting relation is the fundament of democracy, which marks a country's civilization degree and propel the society to forge ahead.

When it comes to another point of the speaker’s argument, namely the goal of politics should not be the pursuit of an ideal; my attitude sharply varies between different explanations and comprehensions on the key word- ideal. If ideal was defined as impractical ideas- castle in the air, of course, it should not be the base for the policy-making. The leader with hollow ideal may lead his people to abyss, such as the former Iraq president ‘s dream of his “Arab empire”. However, if the ideal was defined as certain ground and reasonable ambition, it could even be argued that the very difference between politician and statesman comes from the pursuit of ideal. Politicians do with the ideal, statesman without. The most brilliant politicians in the history are those who are harboring holy but ground ideals, cherish their ideals as the source of commitment.

In a sum, politics has its specific trait, once an individual steps on the power stage; he (or she) will greatly influence the rest of people, and his (or her) decision impacting the interests of various groups are unavoidable to be the result of compromise, a wiser politician will pursuit their reasonable ideals and move ahead on the process of compromise.