gre考试issue作文为什么会跑题

在gre写作考试中会有issue和argument。那么，各位对gre作文issue、gre作文argument有没有进行过了解呢?下面小编就和大家分享gre写作 issue与argument的异同,希望能够帮助到大家，来欣赏一下吧。

gre写作 issue与argument的异同

考生想要在gre写作中取得好成绩，就需要同时写出两篇不错的文章来，这对于不少英语基础一般，写作水平也普通的同学来说并不容易做到。不过，如果大家能够充分了解gre作文issue和argument的异同点，并进行足够的练习，高分作文也还是很有把握的。下面小编就为大家全面解析gre写作两篇作文的异同之处，帮助大家练好写作思路确保作文高分。

gre写作两篇作文相同点

虽然gre作文argument和issue有很多不同之处，但在一些基本的规范和要求上还是有共通之处的：

1. 文章基本要求相同

gre两篇作文的考试时间都是30分钟。考生需要在30分钟内完成从审题到构思到最后成文的整个流程。而两篇文章的文体风格也基本相同，都是属于议论文性质的写作。因此，很多考生比较惧怕的描述类文章就不会有所涉及了。同时，虽然gre考试本身并没有做出任何字数方面的限制和要求，但根据历年来的高分范文总结，一般作文字数在400-500字左右是比较稳妥的，这一点ISSUE和ARGUMENT两篇作文也没有太大区别。

2. 文章评分标准相同

除了规范要求外，gre两篇作文在评分标准上也是基本相同的。大致都可以分为文章整体结构、逻辑思维能力、对于词句语法的运用以及论据素材的使用这几个方面。当然，由于两篇文章本身具体写作要求的区别，可能在一些评分细节上还存在不同。

3. 官方复习资源相同

无论是ISSUE作文还是ARGUMENT作文，两篇gre作文的复习资源也是基本相同的。除了官方公布的作文练习题外，高分范文、黄金词句和论据素材都是帮助考生练习写作能力锻炼作文水平需要用到的复习必备材料。

gre写作两篇作文不同点

说完了相似之处，接下来小编为大家介绍一下两篇作文的不同之处：

1. 写作具体要求区别

gre ISSUE作文的写作要求，大体相当于中文里的立论文，也就是根据作文题目给出的内容自己确定一个论点观点后搭框架写文章。而与之相对的ARGUMENT，则是驳论性质的文章，需要考生根据给出的题目和观点进行反驳，也就是通俗意义上的挑错。

2. 写作难度有所不同

对于并非英语母语的中国考生来说，ISSUE作文的难度是比较高的，因为写好立论文需要考生自己根据题目提炼观点，如果考生本身的自主思维能力和创造力比较一般，很有可能出现不知道如何找观点写文章的情况。而且不少考生存在缺乏主动思考能力的问题，对于写作比较被动，很容易就会写偏题。而ARGUMENT作文则相对简单一些，考生只需要根据给出的内容找逻辑漏洞和问题，并针对这些问题攻击挑错就能完成写作任务，更容易找到写作思路。

3. 复习方法花费时间不同

ISSUE作文需要花费更多的时间用于复习，理由上文已经说过，中国考生大多更难写好ISSUE，因此练习的时间也会因此增加。而复习ISSUE作文的重点，应该放在准备作文模板和练习快速列提纲搭框架之上。考生看gre备考资料备考资料等复习资料时，也应该更加着眼于从文章题目的整体出发，把握住题目的主旨，提炼好观点节省考试时间。

ARGUMENT作文难度较低，需要的复习时间也比较少。而复习ARGUMENT，考生则应该把注意力更多地集中在根据官方练习题学习找逻辑漏洞进行攻击的具体写法上。因为哪怕题目千变万化，但能够用以攻击反驳的逻辑问题其实就那么固定的几种，大家只要练熟了找茬的本领学会了写作套路，想要写好ARGU并不困难。同时，考生在学习gre作文备考资料时，对于ARGU部分的备考资料，从文章细节漏洞等角度入手会收获更好的复习效果。

GRE写作高分范文：批判性思维

Too much time, money, and energy are spent developing new and more elaborate technology. Society should instead focus on maximizing the use of existing technology for the immediate benefit of its citizens.

I must say that I reject this statement. While it is true that we need to support society as much as possible with current technology, that does not in any way mean that we should stop progressing simply because our current technology cannot handle all the problems we have brought to it. Does that mean that we should simply accept the status quo and make do? No, I don’t think so. To do so would be tantamount to adopting a fatalistic approach; I think most people would reject that.

Technology has helped, and it has hurt. Without it, we would never have our standard of living, nor quality of nutrition, expectation of a long and productive life span, and the unshakable belief that our lives can be made even better. But it has also brought us universal pollution, weapons so powerful as to be capable of rendering us extinct, and the consequent fear for our survival as species and as a planet. Technology is indeed a double-edged sword. And yet, I still have to argue in its favor, because without it, we have no hope.

Some might argue that we would be better off without technology. They might say that a return to a less technologically driven approach to life would have the benefits of reducing stress and allowing us to live simpler, happier lives, like those of our forebears. Such an idea is seductive, so much so that much of art and all of nostalgia are devoted to it. But upon closer inspection, one realizes that such a move would only return us to a life of different kinds of stress, one of false simplicity, one fraught with danger. It would be a life

without antibiotics where a minor cut could prove deadly. It would be a life where childbirth is the main killer of women, and where an emergency is dealt with in terms of hours and days instead of minutes and hours; a life where there are no phones or cars or planes or central heating, no proven drug therapies to treat mental illness, no computers. Would this world really make people happy?

What we already have, we have. And since the only way to move is forward, instead of allowing ourselves to be paralyzed by fear and worry, we need to learn how to clean up the pollution we have caused, and how to deal with a world that feeds on weapons and mass destruction. Doing these things means having to move away from technology into a more difficult realm, that of diplomacy and compromise: to move from the bully stance of “I am bigger and better and I have more toys and so I win” to a place where everyone wins.

Technology is the thing that will allow people to do that. But, advanced as it is, it is still in its infancy. We have to allow it to grow up and mature in order to reap the real rewards that it can bring. And there are even greater rewards ahead of us than what the world has already experienced. When technology is pushed to the outer edge, that is where serendipitous discoveries can occur. This has been seen throughout technological advancement, but the easiest example is probably the space program which made us think, really hard, about how to do things in a different environment. It gave us telecommunications, new fabrics and international cooperation. Paramedical devices, so that people can be treated even as they are being transported to the hosptal, are a direct development of that technology. None of this would have happened in the time frame that it did if we had not pushed for technological advancement. If we had decided to

第二段：

(概述科技的两面性)Technology has helped, and it has hurt. (具体讨论科技的贡献)Without it, we would never have our standard of living, nor quality of nutrition, expectation of a long and productive life span, and the unshakable belief that our lives can be made even better. (具体讨论科技的危害)But it has also brought us universal pollution, weapons so powerful as to be capable of rendering us extinct, and the consequent fear for our survival as species and as a planet. Technology is indeed a double-edged sword. (表明已考虑到科技的危害，但是依然坚持自己立场)And yet, I still have to argue in its favor, because without it, we have no hope.

第三段：

(提出反方的立场)Some might argue that we would be better off without technology. They might say that a return to a less technologically driven approach to life would have the benefits of reducing stress and allowing us to live simpler, happier lives, like those of our forebears. Such an idea is seductive, so much so that much of art and all of nostalgia are devoted to it. (通过具体论据反驳反方的观点)But upon closer inspection, one realizes that such a move would only return us to a life of different kinds of stress, one of false simplicity, one fraught with danger. It would be a life without antibiotics where a minor cut could prove deadly. It would be a life where childbirth is the main killer of women, and where an emergency is dealt with in terms of hours and days instead of minutes and hours; a life where there are no phones or cars or planes or central heating, no proven drug therapies to treat mental illness, no computers. Would this world really make people happy?

第四段：

(在第三段驳论的基础上进一步立论)What we already have, we have. And since the only way to move is forward, instead of allowing ourselves to be paralyzed by fear and worry, we need to learn how to clean up the pollution we have caused, and how to deal with a world that feeds on weapons and mass destruction. Doing these things means having to move away from technology into a more difficult realm, that of diplomacy and compromise: to move from the bully stance of “I am bigger and better and I have more toys and so I win” to a place where everyone wins.

第五段：

Technology is the thing that will allow people to do that. (指出支持观点存在的一点不足)But, advanced as it is, it is still in its infancy. (解决方案)We have to allow it to grow up and mature in order to reap the real rewards that it can bring. And there are even greater rewards ahead of us than what the world has already experienced. When technology is pushed to the outer edge, that is where serendipitous discoveries can occur. This has been seen throughout technological advancement, but the easiest example is probably the space program which made us think, really hard, about how to do things in a different environment. It gave us telecommunications, new fabrics and international cooperation. Paramedical devices, so that people can be treated even as they are being transported to the hospital, are a direct development of that technology. None of this would have happened in the time frame that it did if we had not pushed for technological advancement. If we had decided to “focus on maximizing the use of existing technology” instead of foolishly reaching for the stars, we would not have made those discoveries which now are the bedrock of the 21st century.

gre满分作文重点：Critical Thinking.当然，提高critical thinking能力的同时，也很有必要包装语言。

GRE写作高分范文：名人观点

When famous people give their opinions, many people listen. Should we pay attention to those remarks?

When Tom Cruise once appeared in a TV program, he was too excited so he jumped up and down the couch. Later “jump the couch” was adopted in the American dictionary for slang. This is a bit exaggerating, but it definitely reflects the fact that when famous people give their opinions, many people listen. But, should we pay attention to these remarks or actions?

Firstly, famous people are “famous”, for they have one or few aspects that exceed common people. Like Albert Einstein once said, “I think and think for months, for years, ninety-nine times the conclusion false, but the hundredth time I am right.” As a brilliant scientist, he speaks of the right attitudes towards science and inspires countless people to fight for the truth. Hollywood actors or actresses, they may talk about their dressing styles or skin cares on magazine. These are all advice that we might as well take, for real life is not just serious academic things but also the satisfaction of living.

But the point is that, celebrities are not perfect role models for the public. Once I heard a story about Einstein, saying that he nearly got into the water when he once harassed a young lady and got refused when they were in a boat in a park. Is Einstein evil somehow? No! He’s just being human. Then is it wrong to harass ladies? Yes. But all humans make mistakes. Celebrities are experts in certain areas but not all. In some other fields, they should even learn from us.

Generally, there are two extremes when talking about celebrities: the public are either too critical or too superstitious. Objectively, both of the attitudes are unnecessary. As a Chinese saying which generalizes this situation the best goes: to take in the good, while to get rid of the bad.