GRE写作保证稳定得分请先了解这些常见易错原因,快来看看吧，下面小编就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。

GRE写作保证稳定得分请先了解这些常见易错原因

GRE写作易错扣分问题：整体逻辑

大体上来说，同学们的逻辑问题是最多的。逻辑问题有三种，通篇逻辑，段落之间，段落之中。其实这可能和我们高中初中的英语教育有关系，大家都很喜欢一条一条摆原因。Firstly, secondly...然后后面至于这个ly后面是什么就不管了，一顿胡扯。也不管这段落与段落之间的衔接是否自然，反正都有什么ly给打头阵。

事实上，中西方的思维总是存在差异，很多时候考官都不懂考生在说什么。考官很困惑，这个例子和这个有关系吗?为什么前面在说A，后面突然B了?和结论什么关系?要记住一点，GRE作文文章是一个整体，你的开篇结尾和中部内容都是应该有关联的。也就是说，在开头提到的，文中应该有展开，同时在结尾有总结。中文里不也要求行文流畅么，所以GRE作文想要保分，至少要保证文章的整体逻辑是通顺的。

GRE写作易错扣分问题：观点选择

很多同学都很喜欢写中立观点“A不错，但不够好”，这虽然看起来很客观，但实际上这种GRE作文对逻辑的要求非常高，要怎样去组织语言，组织相应的论据论点，非常考验人。有同学想说A事件要瑕疵互见，但是写着写着就乱七八糟，东一块西一块，不知道在讲点什么了。更有厉害的索性冗长的写了许多，结果却讲了空话。所以小编建议刚上手的同学，写ISSUE的时候还是选择一边倒，站定脚跟不放松。即便是真的要写中立观点，实际上也要表现出在A和B之间的偏好。

GRE写作易错扣分问题：内容空洞

现在很多考生练GRE写作的时候都会先写提纲，这种做法本身是挺好的，但有些同学只写一个观点，然后后面的例子乱用，或者根本没有弄清楚什么是例子。事实上，这种展开，可以是实例，也可以是虚拟的假设。实例中往往分自己的经验和他人的经验。那么怎样的例子有说服力呢?记住你的举例一定要死死扣住你的GRE作文观点，不要是和观点打擦边球的。比如小编之前看到过的一篇GRE作文，大观点是电脑对学生来说是有益的，小观点是可以查到很多资料，然后例子是可以用google查到很多资料，很快捷。这样的写法乍一看没有问题，但实际上问题大了，用goole查到很多资料，是因为电脑还是internet?这很容易就偏题了，变成internet 对学生来说是有益的。例子一定要从论点出发，再回到论点。不要将你的论点发散，否则后果很可能就是越写越跑题。所以小编建议大家每次写好一篇文章，都检查一下论据里的key words是不是和论点里的key words 一样，论点里的key words又是不是和题目里的key words一样。你的key words 可以比大题里的key words更加narrow，但是千万不要更加广泛。

GRE写作易错扣分问题：段落连接

段落之间的连接出问题也是比较容易导致作文扣分的因素之一。会出现这种错误一般都是因为大家对连接词的运用存在问题。比如However, thus, therefore之类的词汇其实很重要，因为他们决定了上下文之间的关系。而许多同学用错了连接词，就会让文章读起来很奇怪，比如上下两段之间完全不是转折的关系，考生却用了however，这就会让人觉得有些奇怪了。有些同学干脆就是上下文之间完全没有逻辑联系，然后强行把两个单句凑在了一起。总而言之，一篇文章无论是段落内的上下句，还是两个邻接的段落之间，都是需要有连接词来体现其逻辑关系的。考生想要取得GRE写作满分则一定要注意在这方面尽可能做好。

新GRE Issue写作范文透析

Topic

The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine："The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California confirm my conclusion. In 1915 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 1992 there were only four species of amphibians observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. The decline in Yosemite has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1920 (trout are known to eat amphibian eggs). But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline."

Sample Essay

In this argument, the writer of the letter concludes that global pollution of water and air has caused a decline in the number of amphibians worldwide. To support his or her conclusion, the writer cites the results of two studies, seventy-five years apart, that purportedly show that the number of amphibians in one park in California, Yosemite National Park, have drastically declined. Additionally, the writer casts aside a given reason for the decline, stating that the introduction of trout to the park (who are known to eat amphibian eggs) does not explain the worldwide decline in the number of amphibians. This argument defies simple logic and suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the argument is based on only two studies in one specific part of the world, Yosemite National Park in California. It is impossible to pinpoint a worldwide theory for the decline of amphibians based on any number of studies in only one specific location in the world - the specific varieties of amphibians, geographical conditions and other location specific variables prohibit such a sweeping generalization. One very specific location cannot be used as a model for all other locations, even within one particular country, let alone the entire world. The writer provides no evidenced whatsoever that links the Yosemite study with any purported effects anywhere else in the global environment.

Secondly, the two separate studies were done seventy-five years apart. There is no evidence that the two studies were conducted in a similar manner over the same duration of time or even over the same exact areas of Yosemite National Park, or that the exact same study methods were used. For example, perhaps the first study lasted over an entire year and was conducted by twenty-five experts in amphibious biology, resulting in the finding of seven species of amphibians in abundant numbers. By contrast, perhaps the second study was conducted over a period of one week by a lone high school student as a school science project. The writer offers no basis on which to compare the two studies, leaving it open as to whether the two are truly comparable in their breadth, scope and expertise.

Finally, the writer notes that the decline in the amphibian population has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters in 1920, but then dismisses that argument on the purely specious basis that it does not explain the worldwide decline. This part of the argument blithely dismisses the very relevant fact that trout are known to eat amphibian eggs. This attempt to "prove a negative" is the last resort of those in search of some vain attempt to prove the truth of the matter that they are asserting. It is basically impossible to "prove a negative"; this is an attempt to shift the burden of proof back on to the nonbelievers of the argument. The global environmental situation and that of Yosemite National Park are not perfectly correlated, and the fact that the trout may very well be responsible for the decline cannot simply be dismissed without further proof.

In summary, the writer fails to establish any causal relationship between global air and water pollution and the decline of amphibious life worldwide. The evidence presented is extremely weak at best and narrowly focuses on one tiny area of the globe, as well as putting forward as proof two studies about which almost nothing is known. For a stronger argument, the writer would need to directly put forth evidence associating air and water pollution with not only the decline at Yosemite but also throughout other areas of the world.(599 words)

[题目]

下述文字摘自一封致某环保杂志编辑的信函：全球两栖动物数量的减少明显标志着全球性水与大气的污染。对加利福尼亚州约塞米蒂国家公园内两栖动物所作的两项研究可证实我的这一结论。1915年公园内有七个物种的两栖动物，每一物种都拥有丰富的种群数量。然而，1992年，在公园内所能观察到的两栖动物物种仅为四类，且每一物种的种群数量已骤然下降。约塞米蒂公园动物数量减少被归咎于始于1920年的将鲑鱼引入公园水域的做法(众所周知，鲑鱼喜食两栖动物所产的卵)。但鲑鱼的引入不可能成为约塞米蒂公园动物数量减少的真正原因，因为它无法来解释全球范围内的动物数量减少。

[范文正文]

在本项论述中，信函作者的结论是，全球性水与大气污染已致使世界范围内两栖动物的数量减少。为了支持其论点，作者援引了两份时隔75年之久的研究结果，这两份结果据称可证明加利福尼亚州某一公园――即约塞米蒂国家公园――内两栖动物的数量锐减。此外，该作者撇开了动物数量减少的一个已知原因，陈述道，将鲑鱼引入公园(据称，鲑鱼喜食两栖动物所产的卵)这一做法不足以解释世界范围内两栖动物数量上的减少。这一论点有悖于简单的逻辑，犯有一系列关键性的逻辑谬误。

首先，该论点所依据的仅仅是世界上某一特定地点――即加利福尼亚州约塞米蒂国家公园――内的两份研究。围绕着两栖动物数量减少这一问题，如果仅以世界上一个特定的地点为样品，再多数量的研究也无法得出一种精确的、适用于全世界的理论。两栖动物的具体种类、地理状况以及其他因地点而特异的变数均不允许我们作出如此一概而论的总括。一个非常具体的地点不能用作一个代表所有其他地点的模型，即使在一个特定的国家内也不行，更不用说在整个世界范围内了。信函作者没有提供任何证据将约塞米蒂公园的研究与全球环境中任何其他一处地方的任何所宣称的效果联系起来。 其次，所提及的那两项互为独立的研究时隔75年之久。没有证据可证明这两项研究是在相同的时间跨度内以相似的方式进行的，或是在约塞米蒂公园完全相同的地点进行的，或所使用的研究方法绝然相同。

例如，第一项研究可能持续了整整一年之久，且是由两栖动物生物学领域的二十五位专家共同进行的。结果是发现了七大种类数目众多的两栖动物。相反，第二项研究可能是一位高中生孤身一人所做的学校的一个科学课题，仅为期一个星期。信函作者没有提供将此两项研究进行比较的基础，从而使两项研究在其广度、范围以及专业水准方面的可比性不得而知。 最后，信函作者指出，两栖动物种群数量的减少，已被人归咎于1920年将鲑鱼引入公园水域这一做法，但紧接着又以该论据无法解释世界范围内动物数量减少这一似是而非的依据将该论据予以否认。信函作者论述中的这一部分漫不经心地将一个极为相关的事实弃置不顾，即众所周知，鲑鱼喜食两栖动物所产的卵。这种"prove a negative "的尝试往往是这样一类人所惯用的最后伎俩，他们竭力寻找某种徒劳的尝试，力图去证明他们所宣称的事物的真理。从根本上讲，"prove a negative"是不可能的。这样一种做法是试图将论证的负担重新转嫁给不相信该论据的人。全球的环境情形与约塞米蒂公园的情形并不绝然对应。鲑鱼极有可能造成了两栖动物数量减少这一事实在缺乏进一步证据的情况下是断不能轻易予以否认的。

概括而言，信函作者没能在全球空气和水污染与世界范围内两栖生命数量减少之间建立起任何因果关系。该作者所拿出的证据充其量也是极为苍白无力的，狭隘地将焦点集中在世界的一片极小的区域上，作为证据而援引的两项研究几乎不能说明任何问题。欲使其论点更具力度，信函作者尚需摆出直接的证据，将水和空气污染不仅仅与约塞米蒂公园的两栖动物数量减少联系起来，而且也与世界其他地方的动物数量减少联系起来。

写作备考题库范文：如何避免偏激

GRE作文题目：

Most people often look for similarities, even between very different things, and even when it it is unhelpful or harmful to do so. Instead, a thing should be considered on its own terms: we should avoid the tendency to compare it to something else.

人们总是在寻找相同点，即使是在非常不同的事物间也不例外，甚至有时候这样做是无用乃至有害的。实际上，我们应该具体问题具体分析;我们应该尽量避免比较的倾向。

GRE写作正文：

In the age of accelerating changes, the eagerness to understand things in an effective and equally efficient way is more than ever. Although all kinds of complex techniques, skills and equipments helpful for understanding and studying the objects are easily accessible to people, the basic strategies stay the same as before: one is starting from similarities and the other from distinction. From my personal point of view, only by using the two in proper proportion and order can one achieve his/her goal to understand a thing.

Looking for similarities is a proper starting point. When we first meet something new,we need to clarify its basic attributes, finding similarites with other familiar things and classify it according to those attributes. Classification according to similaties is of great assistance to provide us with an outline, basic knowledge which we can base further investigation upon. Although things in contemporary age represent themselves in various forms and styles, similarities exist in any pair as long as certain perspective can be found. For instance, Bookcase and window are so different that at first glance, one

may not be able to find the similarities, or even such an effort seems to be meaningless. Yet, they are both part of a house, something that must be taken into consideration when decorating or refurnishing the house. Such a comparison would be helpful for us to realize that “buy” and “sell” are two basic operation we can have upon window even though we have no idea what window is made of, how it is produced or what its function is.What’s more, looking for similarities not only refer to the object itself, but the relationship with others. Similar relationships helps people understand things in groups or pairs using the strategy: analogy. Analogy is especially useful when the charactertistics of a relationship rather than the objects themselves are the focus of understanding and when similar relationships are known and objects unknown. For example, if told that the relationship between window and ASVE is similar to that between book and read, one can safely guess that ASVE is the operation people can take on window although ASVE stays an unknown action.

Definitely, mere similarity usually exclude the distinctive characteristics of a thing. We need to investigate its own terms for deeper understanding. Within the rough outline sketched by similarity, a more detailed and well-articulated picture can be drawn by grasping own terms of a thing. Still take window as an example. From careful observation, we know that it is transparent, it consists of different chemical materials, it performs the function as to protect privacy, to preserve desirable temperature indoor, and sometimes to prevent rains and snows from going inside. Deeper and further understanding of window can only be gained when we take its own terms besides those it shares with bookcase into consideration.

In the newly development software engineering model named Object-oriented model,the strategy “similarity first and differences later” functions as the core and focus of the whole model. Objects sharing common points are put into same “classes” and common points are processed together, later they are defined, discussed and processed respectively according to their own characteristics. This method greatly reduces the repetive time and energy spent over and over again on similar, if not utterly same, terms. Translated into daily life, starting from similarites for a quick outline and transferring to grasp distinctive characteristics for deeper understanding isthe approach we should always bear in mind when hoping to understand a thing with effectiveness and efficiency.

GRE写作保证稳定得分请先了解这些常见易错原因相关文章：