美国人对GRE作文相关问题的回复

美国人对GRE作文相关问题的回复，快来一起看看吧，分享下面小编就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。

美国人对GRE作文相关问题的回复

去信

Dear Sir:

Will you please tell me whether your department(注：economics) has any special requirement of GRE Analytical Writing score to applicants?

Thank you in advance.

回信

1. At this time we do not have enough data on the new Analytical Writing Score section of the test to inform you of a required minimum score. At this time, however, I would say that a score below 3.5 would cause concern in the Admission committee that perhaps the applicants writing fluency is not advanced enough to assist them in their Ph.D. studies. However, the TOEFL is what we most closely examine when determing an applicant's English proficiency. A score below 220 on the TOEFL will not be accepted by the Economics Department.

Thanks.

Caroline Morris

Asst. to DGS

Department of Economics

138C SocSci, Ecoteach

Box 90097

Duke University

2. Not that I am aware of.

Rosemary

Rosemary E. Dow

Coordinator of Graduate Studies

University of Rochester

Department of Economics

237 Harkness Hall, RC Box 270156

Rochester, NY 14627-0156

3. We do not. The only cutoff we had this year was that the quantitative aptitude score be at least 730.

Truman Bewley

Yale

4. We do not pay much attention to the GRE Analytical Writing section part of the GRE.

I hope this answers your question!

Sincerely,

Shireen Tahira Aaser

econ.umn.edu

5. No we do not. Since the analytical writing portion of the GRE is so new, we have no measure of whether the score will be an indicator for success in our program. However, we do review the score in the sense of the English language writing skills of the applicants.

Mary Braun Voice 734-764-2360

Student Services Associate Fax 734-764-2769

Department of Economics

611 Tappan Street

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1220

GRE考试范文精选：探讨计算机的利与弊

Some people claim that public museums and art galleries will not be needed because people can see historical objects and works of art by using a computer. Do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

宣称历史文物和艺术作品都可以从电脑上看到，因此公共博物馆和艺术画廊便不再需要了简直就是荒.唐。

It is simply absurd to assert that with historical objects and works of art being able to be seen through a computer, public museums and art galleries will no longer be needed.

首先，电脑永远替代不了真正的公共博物馆和艺术画廊。不管电脑影像何等真实、形象，它们依然仅仅是影像而已，不是我们真正看到的、甚或还会被许可用指端触摸一下的历史文物和艺术作品。对于那些声称因为可以从电脑屏幕上看到想看的一切，所以博物馆和艺术画廊没有继续存在必要的人们，我想建议他们就从电脑里娶个太太或者嫁个丈夫得了，犯不着去娶嫁真实生活中的人!

First of all, computers can never replace real public museums and art galleries. No matter how real and vivid computer images are, they are only images, not the historical objects and works of art that we see in real or even might be allowed to touch with our fingertips. For those who claim museums and galleries are no longer needed because they can see all they want to on a computer screen, I'd like to suggest that they marry a wife or husband in the computer rather than in real life!

其次，参观真实的博物馆和艺术画廊在多方面有益。一来可以锻炼身体：在我们赶往博物馆或者艺术画廊并漫步现场的过程中，我们得到了一些锻炼，这对我们的身体健康有诸多好处。二来我们可以大饱眼福，亲眼看到那里的所有物件并切身体会那种神奇、美妙和精湛的工艺。这个过程是主动地看我们想看的一切，不是被动地去看别人在电脑屏幕上展示给我们的。再来就是我们离开电脑去现场观看真实物件可以保护我们的视力。

In the second place, visiting real museums and art galleries is a rewarding experience in many respects. For one thing, it is a good exercise. While we are making the trip to a museum or art gallery and then strolling about on site, we get some exercise which does a lot of good to our health. For another thing, we can feast our eyes on all kinds of things there and experience the wonder, beauty and exquisite workmanship with our own eyes in an active way instead of in a passive manner by looking at what are being displayed to us by others on the screen. For yet another thing, we protect our eyesight by moving away from the computer screen and see the real objects on site.

电脑给我们的生活带来了很多方便，这是真的。有时候，特别是当我们暂时不能亲临博物馆和艺术画廊时，我们可以大概了解一下现场都展示了哪些东西。然而，我们从电脑屏幕上看到的与我们现场亲眼看到和感受到的毕竟是不完全一样的。

It is true that computers have brought great conveniences to our life. At certain times, especially when it is temporarily impossible for us to visit museums and art galleries in person, we can get a rough picture of what are on display on site. However, what we see from a computer screen is, after all, not exactly the same as what we see and feel with our own eyes on site.

由此我们可以得出结论：电脑永远不可能替代真实的博物馆和艺术画廊。因此，说不需要去博物馆和画廊了因为历史文物和艺术作品都可以通过电脑屏幕来欣赏了是荒谬的。

In conclusion, computers will never be able to replace real public museums and art galleries. Therefore, it is ridiculous to say that one does not need to go to museums and art galleries as historical objects and works of art can be appreciated on a computer screen.

GRE写作官方题库高频ARGUMENT题目满分范文分享：Ballmer Island Gazette

GRE作文官方题库ARGUMENT题目：

The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Ballmer Island Gazette:

“On Balmer Island, where mopeds serve as a popular form of transportation, the population increases to 100,000 during the summer months. To reduce the number of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians, the town council of Balmer Island should limit the number of mopeds rented by the island’s moped rental companies from 50 per day to 25 per day during the summer season. By limiting the number of rentals, the town council will attain the 50 percent annual reduction in moped accidents that was achieved last year on the neighboring island of Seaville, when Seaville’s town council enforced similar limits on moped rentals.”

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

【满分范文赏析】

The author of this editorial recommends that, to reduce accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians, Balmer Island’s city council should restrict moped rentals from 50 to 25 per day, at each of the island’s six rental outlets. To support this recommendation the author cites the fact that last year, when nearby Seaville Island’s town council enforced similar measures, Seaville’s rate of moped accidents decreased by 50%. There are several reasons why this evidence fails to substantiate the claim.

【本段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即C—E—F的开头结构。段落首先概括原文的Conclusion，接下来概括原文为支持其结论所引用的Evidence，最后给出开头段到正文段的过渡句，指出原文的Flaw，即其Evidence不能证实其结论。

【本段功能】

本段作为Argument开头段，具体功能就在于发起攻击并概括原文的结论，即：为减少涉及摩托自行车与行人的事故的发生，Balmer岛市议会应在该岛六个租车点将摩托自行车的日租借量限制由50辆下调至25辆。本段接下来列举了原文为支持其结论所引用的证据——在去年，当附近的Seaville岛的镇议会实行了类似的措施后，其摩托自行车事故率降低了50%。这些信息的归纳为正文段中即将进行的具体攻击作铺垫。

To begin with, the author assumes that all other conditions in Balmer that might affect the rate of moped-pedestrian accidents will remain unchanged after the restrictions are enacted. People often find ways to circumvent restrictions. For example, with a restricted supply of rental mopeds, people in Balmer who currently rent in the summer might purchase mopeds instead. Also, the number of pedestrians might increase in the future.With more pedestrians, especially tourists, the risk of moped-pedestrian accidents would probably increase. For that matter, the number of rental outlets might increase to make up for the artificial supply restriction per outlet, a likely scenario in consideration of the fact that moped rental demand will not likely decrease.Without considering and ruling out these and other possible changes that might contribute to a high incidence of moped-pedestrian accidents, the author cannot convince me that the proposed restrictions will necessarily have the desired effect.

【本段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第一个逻辑错误的错误类型和其在原文中出现的位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

【本段功能】

本段作为正文第一段，攻击原文中出现的第一个重要逻辑错误——忽略他因。原文作者假设在制定限制措施后，Balmer岛上所有其它可能影响摩托自行车事故率的条件将保持不变。然而，人们经常会发现避开限制的方法。例如，当摩托自行车的租借量受限制时，目前在夏季租用摩托自行车的Balmer岛人们可能会改为购买摩托自行车。另外，行人的数目在未来可能会增加。行人(尤其是游客)数目的增加可能会导致摩托自行车和行人之间发生事故的增多。鉴于对摩托自行车出租的需求量不太可能会下降，摩托自行车租借点的数目很可能会增加，以弥补每个租车点的租借量所受到的人为限制。本段最后指出：作者在没有考虑和排除这些可能会提高摩托自行车和行人纸质件事故的发生率的其它改变之前，是不能说服读者其所提出的措施一定会获得期望的效果的。

To further explore the link between the two locations and a reduction in number of accidents, the author relies on what could be an unfair comparison. Perhaps Balmer’s ability to enforce moped-rental restrictions does not meet Seaville’s ability.In that case, the mere enactment of similar restrictions in Balmer is no guarantee of a similar result. Or perhaps the demand for mopeds in Seaville is always greater than in Balmer. Specifically, if fewer than all available mopeds are currently rented per day from the average Balmer outlet, while in Seaville everyavailable moped is rented each day, then the proposed restriction is likely to have less impact on the accident rate in Balmer than in Seaville.

【本段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第三个逻辑错误的错误类型和其在原文中出现的位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

【本段功能】

本段作为正文第三段，攻击原文中出现的第三个重要逻辑错误——错误类比。或许Balmer岛在加强摩托自行车租借限制时的执行力不及Seaville岛的执行力。在这种情形下，仅仅在Balmer岛上制定与Seaville岛相似的限制并不能保证获得相似的效果。抑或是Seaville岛对摩托自行车的需求量始终比Balmer岛上的大。特别地，如果通常的Balmer岛租借点每天租出的摩托自行车数量比其可供租借的摩托自行车总量少，而Seaville岛租借点的每辆摩托自行车每天均被租出，那么被提议的限制对Balmer岛事故率的影响很可能会小于其对Seaville岛的影响。

Finally, the author provides no evidence that the same restrictions that served to reduce the incidence of all “moped accidents” by 50% would also serve to reduce the incidence of “accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians” by 50%. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that the number of moped accidents not involving pedestrians decreased by a greater percentage, while the number of moped-pedestrian accidents decreased by a smaller percentage, or even increased. Since the author has not accounted for these possibilities, the recommendation requires further substantiation.

【本段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第四个逻辑错误的错误类型和其在原文中出现的位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

【本段功能】

本段作为正文第四段，攻击原文中出现的第四个重要逻辑错误——错误假设。作者没有提供证据证明使得“摩托自行车事故”的发生减少50%的那些限制同样也将使得“涉及摩托自行车和行人的事故”的发生减少50%。如果缺乏如此证据，完全可能是摩托自行车事故的数目降低了更大的百分比，而摩托自行车和行人之间的事故降低了较小的百分比，甚至可能上升了。本段最后指出：既然作者没有对这些可能性进行说明，其建议需要被进一步证实。

美国人对GRE作文相关问题的回复相关文章：