gre考试备考时间不够该如何给写作“减负”

新gre作文受到了很多学子的关注，那么你清楚gre写作教程吗?如何拿到新gre作文5.5分呢?下面小编就和大家分享gre考试写作创作教程,希望能够帮助到大家，来欣赏一下吧。

gre考试写作创作教程

绝密gre写作教程：

一、审题

一审文章的文体和格式，如书信有求职信、推荐信、回复信等，还有人物介绍、看图说明等等不同要求的写作题材，弄清文章的文体和格式是重要前提。GRE考试审题不清会导致格式不规范，作文要求不合格，甚至因为跑题偏题的错误而失分。

二审文章内容，先对题中的信息进行筛选，哪些是有用信息，哪些是无用信息，然后把有用信息按一定顺序分小点列出来。

二、遣词造句

1. 根据审题步骤所列出的内容要点，列出文章中可能要用到的关键词语(如动词、短语等)

2. 列出文章中可能用到的句型

3. 列出文章中可能用到的语句间的连接词

4. 按内容要点顺序和所列词语、句型写出单句

三、构思成文

这是新GRE写作的关键步骤。不能只是简单翻译内容要点，要作一些适当发挥，使整篇文章既有“骨架”，又有“血肉”。同时应注意以下几点：

1. 注意全文的时态运用，整篇文章的时态应该保持一致性。

2. 注意短文的布局谋篇。恰当的段落划分，前后语句的连贯，句型的选择，连接词的运用，使文章层次分明，语言畅通，连接恰当，最终为文章增色出彩。

四、通读检查

这是完善新GRE作文任务的最后步骤。通读文章的同时，检查前后内容是否连贯，语言是否畅通，段落划分是否分明，句型及连接词的运用是否恰当，时态运用是否一致，标点符号是否规范等等。完成了这些检查并作出修改订正，一定会使全文更加规范、更加自然流畅。

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写作高分范文：审查的公正性

Censorship is rarely, if ever, justified.

审查很少能够做到公正。

GRE写作正文：

“Censorship” is a word which seems to be authoritative rather than democratic, which implies the will of the governors rather than the will of general people. Since the occurrence of the censorship, which could be traced back to the Ancient Rome, it has been playing an important part in the domestic affairs while arousing applause and condemnation as well. Here the our government faces a dilemma, is it fair to carry on the censorship at the cost of sacrificing part of democracy, or just open the gate letting flows of ideas and thoughts in, at the risk of losing its own rampart.

Since censorship suggest an act of changing or suppressing speech, writing or any other forms of expression that is condemned as subversive of the common good, it must have a close relationship with the one who applies such supervision, and the word “common good” should be redefined under different conditions. There is time when we were all under a powerful monarchy, and the “common good” is the “monarch good”, then the censorship itself is the instrument of the monarch which solely depended on the will of the monarch; in the Middle Ages, both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Churches practiced censorship that seemed to be oppressive to any ideas challenging the doctrines of churches and the existence of God; even now, in some authoritative countries, the censorship is used to rule its people by restricting their minds, of course, for the stability of their governing over the people. With these regards, censorship itself is questioned at the rationality of existing, regardless of the practices made by the democratic government, while the justice of the democratic government is quite doubtable.

The matter concerning is not only who practices the censorship but also how it is practiced. Since different men make different comments on the same work of art, for example, it is hard to set up a measure by which we could decide whether one should be prohibited, especially to the work of arts, as its content always labeled as “subversive” and “revolutionary”, two words detested by the governors most. Such cases could be found in Ulysses by J. Joyce and Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H Lawrence, these two great novels were firstly considered to be guilty of obscenity and were put to prohibition by the American government, but turned out to be true masterpieces today. So any form of censorship, to some extent, lags behind the development of ideas and will put more or less a negative effect on their development.

Though the censorship is such a disgusting word embodying so much oppression and might, it is a compromise we made with the reality far from being perfect, to provide a comparative stable ground which we could stand on. At this point, I don’t agree with the institute like ACLU who oppose any censorship. The censorship, though rarely justified, should exist as long as a more ideal and practical form is found to replace it, or we could only expect our God to create a more ideal species instead of imperfect human beings.