托福写作语法问题深入分析

获得GRE写作满分要先了解GRE写作评分标准，。下面小编就和大家分享如何从评分标准入手备考GRE写作,希望能够帮助到大家，来欣赏一下吧。

如何从评分标准入手备考GRE写作

GRE写作满分要点解析，主要包括以下四点：

1、迎合GRE考试评卷人的评卷思路：

每个评卷人对你文章的评阅非常快，不可能对每个细节都很仔细地去看。考生应该迎合评卷人的评卷思路，用最规范的结构和最清晰的表达来体现自己的思路：首段要鲜明地提出观点，中间段落层次要拉开，每段的开始应该就是该段的topic sentence。

2、熟练掌握新GRE写作题库：

为了达到公平，ETS公布了它考试的所有写作题库，那么为了达到能和native speaker一起竞争，考生应该在考前对所有题目都进行预习(节约考试时的审题时间)，并通过100-150个提纲的写作了解GRE写作的一般结构，通过30-50篇写作来练习自己的写作思路和表达。对题库中的题目越熟练，对考试越有利。

3. 新GRE写作评分注重三方面

首先，从ETS公布的各分数段评分标准看，其评分主要注重以下三个方面：①、逻辑分析能力(要求insightful);②、文章的组织(要求well-organized);③、语言能力(要求standard written English; concise; varied structure等)。

4. 尽量提高AI部分的写作能力而力保AA部分满分

由于AA的写作不牵涉自己观点的展开，只须指出作者逻辑上的漏洞，因此在经过训练以后，写起来并不困难;而AI的写作需要自己展开自己设立的观点，不但需要逻辑上的洞察能力，还需要论证观点的能力，语言组织的能力，因此对于中国考生来讲比较困难，难以短期内有较大提高。

但是这两个部分在总分中的权重是一样的，因此考生的策略应该是尽量提高AI部分的写作能力而力保AA部分满分(或高分)。因为如果AA部分满分的话，AI部分只需争取在4分以上就可以保证整体作文分数在5分以上。

GRE写作高分范文：北美GRE写作满分范文

The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper:

"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

GRE首段

This argument states that it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer because by making the workplace safer then lower wages could be paid to employees. This conclusion is based on the premise that as the list of physical injury increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. However, there are several assumptions that may not necessarily apply to this argument. For example, the costs associated with making the workplace safe must outweigh the increased payroll expenses due to hazardous conditions. Also, one must look at the plausability of improving the work environment. And finally, because most companies agree that as the risk of injury increases so will wages doesn't necessarily mean that the all companies which have hazardous work environments agree.

GRE中间段1

The first issue to be addressed is whether increased labor costs justify large capital expenditures to improve the work environment. Clearly one could argue that if making the workplace safe would cost an exorbitant amount of money in comparison to leaving the workplace as is and paying slightly increased wages than it would not make sense to improve the work environment. For example, if making the workplace safe would cost $100 million versus additional payroll expenses of only $5,000 per year, it would make financial sense to simply pay the increased wages. No business or business owner with any sense would pay all that extra money just to save a couple dollars and improve employee health and relations. To consider this, a cost benefit analysis must be made. I also feel that although a cost benefit analysis should be the determining factor with regard to these decisions making financial sense, it may not be the determining factor with regard to making social, moral and ethical sense.

GRE中间段2

This argument also relies on the idea that companies solely use financial sense in analysing improving the work environment. This is not the case. Companies look at other considerations such as the negative social ramifications of high on-job injuries. For example, Toyota spends large amounts of money improving its environment because while its goal is to be profitable, it also prides itself on high employee morale and an almost perfectly safe work environment. However, Toyota finds that it can do both, as by improving employee health and employee relations they are guaranteed a more motivated staff, and hence a more efficient staff; this guarantees more money for the business as well as more safety for the employees.

GRE中间段3

Finally one must understand that not all work environments can be made safer. For example, in the case of coal mining, a company only has limited ways of making the work environment safe. While companies may be able to ensure some safety precautions, they may not be able to provide all the safety measures necessary. In other words, a mining company has limited ability to control the air quality within a coal mine and therefore it cannot control the risk of employees getting blacklung. In other words, regardless of the intent of the company, some jobs are simply dangerous in nature.

GRE末端

In conclusion, while at first it may seem to make financial sense to improve the safety of the work environment sometimes it truly does not make financial sense. Furthermore, financial sense may not be the only issue a company faces. Other types of analyses must be made such as the social ramifications of an unsafe work environment and the overall ability of a company to improve that environment (i.e。， coal mine)。 Before any decision is made, all this things must be considered, not simply the reduction of payroll expenses.

GRE这篇官方钦定满分的范文，其最明显的优点在于：

1. 字数高达599words, GRE充分体现了字数为王的判分倾向。

2. 标准的五段制，首段、GRE末端，中间三段，看上去很美。

3. 没有陈词滥调、GRE满篇废话的模板式语言。

只有以上三点离满分还是很远的，GRE之所以SIX，我看更重要的在于，每段各尽其责，既独立又统一，形成了完整的ARGUMENT，specifically:

1. 首段再现了原TOPIC的推理过程，GRE并指出其assumptions多有不适;尤其令阅卷人高兴的是：首段在最后简化罗列了推理中的三个问题。要知道美国人就喜欢的作文---总分式，在首段就把三个ideas罗列出来，然后在中间三段分别展开，先总后分，一目了然。

2. 中一的TS -- “The first issue to be addressed is whether increased labor costs justify large capital expenditures to improve the work environment.”可谓是一针见血，一剑封喉。对于这样严重的推理漏洞，如果不首先指出，其argument必然软弱乏力。此所谓Topic中的 “必削点”，不可不察。

3. 中二的TS – “This argument also relies on the idea that companies solely use financial sense in analysing improving the work environment.”这可谓是剑走偏锋，独辟蹊径，出人所料。文章竟然批评了Topic以钱为本经营理念，提出了要以人为本，这样写是有一定风险，毕竟这不是Issue。那本文是如何化险为夷的呢?且看本段最后一句“this guarantees more money for the business as well as more safety for the employees.”我不由得长舒一口，人家再次回归了，又回到了Topic中以“Money”为本的推理。

4. 中三的TS – “Finally one must understand that not all work environments can be made safer.”这充分体现了作者不只是坐而论道的arguer，而是关心其可行性的现实主义者，考虑到方案本身的可行性和局限性。

5. 末端不但对首段提出的论点做出了重复性的总结，GRE而且又不厌其烦地把中间三段的ideas一一罗列。如此“啰嗦”估计令某些同学略有不齿，但这恰恰是美国人的最爱，cultural shock了吧?

本文最令我欣赏的地方，GRE就是对EXAMPLES的运用

1. 中间段一，运用了“设例”GRE(假设的情况)，$100 million啦、$5,000了，很幼稚是吧?可美国人喜欢啊;咱中国的学生，尤其是理工科的，喜欢用一些相当高深的例子，有没有想过那些阅卷老师能看懂吗?尤其是在极短时间内，他们IQ又不高，知识又不多，联想又不丰富……

2. 中间段二，运用了“具例”GRE(具体的例子)，举一个妇孺皆知的Toyota例子把想说明的问题统统道出，再次体现出美国人喜欢浅显易懂的事例。

3. 中间段三，运用了“泛例”GRE(某一类人、团体或组织)，通过采煤行业指出了计划可行性的所受到的制约，一个多么质朴无华的泛例，充分地考虑到了阅卷老师的理解能力。

以上这一切怎能不让美国阅卷者频频颔首，GRE啧啧称善呢?他或她手中的笔在纸上划出了一条美丽的弧线 —— 6

相反，有些中国学生，凭借自己繁密的逻辑、GRE渊深的例子和云雾缭绕的行文，每每令那些阅卷者咬唇咂舌，shrug连连，又怎能获得一个理想的分数呢?你挑战了他的智商，他必然报复你的分数。

GRE作文写作技巧之句子扩充

很多人苦恼句子写不长，一句话写下来才6~7个词不到，而且这还是用了前面说的in the first place的用法。怎么办?

举个例子，也通过扩充这个句子来阐述我所谓的写作的方法。

例子：Firstly, I agree with you.

比如有个学生要表达“首先我同意你”的这个意思，于是他写了这句话，再也写不下去了，不知道怎么办。

那好，首先，我再重申，不要去用那种很无聊的用in the first place替换firstly，因为这两个词都只不过是表达你下面要表达的内容的逻辑顺序，先说哪个后说哪个，重要但不是最重要的，别人要知道的是你首先要表达的到底是什么。如果你要想与众不同点可以把firstly改成primarily¸词就显得高级了点。(但对老外来说差不多就是了)

再者就是重点了，写一个句子前你要问自己三个问题：1)你同意他到什么程度?非常同意，敷衍地同意，还是完全彻底的同意 2)你在哪个方面同意他?物质上，精神上，还是肉体上 3)同意他什么东西?他的意见，思维，行为，还是其他。4)什么样的意见?In short，当你写到这个同学的这个层面上的时候，只能说明你有了你要表达意思的框架，那你要表达的细节呢?相信大家其实都已经想好细节了，或者想都不用想心里一下就有谱了，但是因为是英语，所以大家怕于表达，哪怕是中文也懒于表达，为什么不表达出来呢!表达出来不就有字数了吗!而且把这些细节写出来，你整句话的表达就非常到位了，读者也能一下准确接受到你要表达的意思和深浅。而且这样的细节本身并不是为了凑字数用的，本来就是一种表达的需要，别人需要的是从你那里得到尽可能多的细节和信息。比如老板问你最近公司财务如何，你说还不错，老板会觉得你在敷衍他，因为你没有告诉他细节而他想知道的也是细节。同样的东西，写一句话你能尽可能得多问自己几个问题，多扣那些细节出来，那你表达不就到位了吗?

根据这个思路，我们来扩充一下这个同学的这句话：

比如说，我首先是完全同意你，再者我在精神上同意你，(可能物质上有困难)，同意的是你的观点(可能你的行为我就不同意了)，而且你的观点是独特的。这样一下，细节有了，就可以成句了。

Primarily, I totally agree with your unique opinion mentally.

这样句子就要八个词了，而这时候你只是不带感情的表达了你的意思，如果要再带上感情的表达，不就又有字数又有感情色彩了吗?这时候，还有一个问题，就是agree with其实还不准确，没有力度，或者说不够细节化，没有一种倾向性强烈的感觉，如果改成support，虽然这个词很简单，但是明显比agree with更给人以力度，也更有倾向性，让人更明白你是支持他的而不仅是同意而已，这就涉及到用词到位准确的问题，这在后面的内容会提到。

Primarily, I totally support your unique opinion mentally, whether rightly or wrongly.

不管对错与否，首先我都在精神上完全支持你独特的观点。

这时候句子就有12个词了，而四六级的句子一般都在12个词左右，这样的句子不仅字数上够了，还表达到位了，何乐而不为呢?

还有是一个用词的问题，也是一个非常大的问题，这就需要大家去积累了，需要去背词什么的了。

第一，用词要准确到位，尽量不要用那些很泛意思的词，比如说do, is, make, get等

例子：I walk along the river under the moonlight.. (walk，river)

请注意walk这个词，让我们假想你是在忙完一天繁重的工作后，诗情画意的沿小河走，这时候walk便不足以表达你的放松和惬意，用中文说此时的 walk就是散步，为什么不用amble呢?此时的amble更能说明你此时的心情而不仅仅是泛泛的走而已。同样的道理，river是泛指所有的河流，不分大小粗细，而如果你此时想那天你走的就是一条小溪而且那时确实很浪漫，brook是不是比river更加细节化而准确了呢?当然这都是基于你对词汇的掌握量和掌握的准确度有关，所以还是要下苦功夫去读去背。

所以成句后比较好的是:

I amble along the brook under the moonlight.

我在月光下沿着小溪散步

而用泛词或者不准确的表达会出现你的表达不准确甚至出丑，比如说你挤牛奶，写了get some milk from cattles,或者make some milk from cattles，翻译成中文就是从牛那儿搞点牛奶，或者取点牛奶，而且cattle是泛指所有的牛包括公牛和母牛(cow)，是不是很可笑而且很不地道，文章自然也大失色彩,让人判为低级。

第二，副词(组)或从句的使用

很多时候的使用往往可以收到很好的效果。副词就是形容一个状态或者行动的词，它可以表示程度，情况，方面等等，所以一句话里加上一两个副词很多时候可以让表达更准确。当每句话都用副词的话，句子不就很千篇一律了?副词和一些副词词组的替换使用可以克服这个问题。

比如前面的agree with的那个例子，mentally就很准确的告诉了别人你同意的是在精神的层面上，物质上等等其他的不一定同意，因为没钱或者其他原因，这就限定和细节化了你所要表达的意思的范围。而如果当你发现你已经有一句了hastily,而后面那句还要表达草率的程度时候，不妨换个in hasty，这样词就避免了重复。

To sum up, 要准确的表达你的意思，一定要做到的两点就是第一能尽可能多的在句子中填加你要表达的细节，这些细节表达了你所到说的意思的程度和范围等等，第二就是要用词准确到位，不要为了凑字数而去凑字数，而要想的是最准确的告诉读者你所要表达的所有意思。这也是交流的关键。