GRE写作：高分冲刺
gre写作如何高分冲刺?今天小编给大家带来GRE写作：高分冲刺，希望能够帮助到大家，下面小编就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。
GRE写作：高分冲刺
1.要有可以模仿的文章(最好是带有说理性的文章)。
2.你要理解这个文章，理解它的用词、句子结构、段落结构。
3.这些文章都有正确的中文翻译。同时，文章的长度不能超过500字。
怎么模仿，首先要分析文章，分析每一句和上一句是什么关系。我给大家举个例子：美国人写作文的一个特点是，通常每段的第一句都包含了整段文字的内容，也就是我们常说的topic sentence.。另一个特点是当你写完一个句子后，你要问WHY。你提出一个问题，然后给出一个圆满的回答，这就是一篇优秀的作文。
具体化的能力
具体化并不代表要写一个完整的故事。但是任何一篇文章都要给人一个具体的意向。通过具体的东西来描述才能给人踏实的感觉。具体化只要举出几个地方、几个名字、几件小事就可以了。
为什么好多同学作文中分数很低呢，就是因为他提出了问题却没有回答。
你通过不断地模仿写作，就可以不断地纠正语法和词组错误。如何把抽象和具体结合起来是一个重点，如何在一个段落中只表达一个思想，这是另一个重点。美国人的判分特点是，如果你在一段中表达了一个以上的思想，那你的分数就不会高了。
分析完一篇文章后，怎么模仿着写呢?就是看着中文的翻译，把上面的英文一字不落的写下来，当你实在想不起来的时候，再看原文。等到写完之后，和原文对照一下，看看是谁写得漂亮。我刚刚开始模仿写作的时候发现，模仿了几天后，写作水平的确提高了。
因为根据记忆学原则，这个单词你背过、读过，它都不能写在你的文章中间。如果一个单词可以经常出现在你的脑子和文章中间，那这只证明了一件事，就是你写过这个字。但是你自己写作你不可能用到这个字，那就只有一个可能，就是你在模仿文章时写过这个字。如果一个结构别人写不出来，你能写出来，那你的分数就会高。
通过不断地模仿你的几大能力就会得到提高：
1.你的语法错误会越来越少;
2.句子结构能力越来越强;
3.用词能力大大增加。
GRE写作满分范文赏析
Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour. Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent. But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period. Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.
This argument does not have any concrete information. It seems by Forestville, increasing their speed limit more accidents occured. We all know that accidents occur reguardless of what the speed limit of the highway we travel. Fortunately, Elmsford's accidents decreased during the six-months in discussion. This could be because of good weather, careful drivers, or any number of situations. On the other hand, Forrestville had an increase in accidents. The only determining factor given was the speed limit increasing. This in fact probably did play a big role in why there was a 15% percent increase in the accidents, but may not be the only factor. In order to make an accurate judgement on why there was an increase in automobile accidents the situation needs to be researched. Solid facts need to be stated. Clearly, to reduce the speed limit back to normal in Forrestville would not eliminate the problem. Comments:
This limited critique is plainly flawed. The author begins with a criticism about the lack of "concrete information" but then fails to provide any concrete analysis in the response. The writer cites the drop in Elmsford's accidents but does not develop any of the reasons mentioned to account for the drop: "good weather, careful drivers, or any number of situations."
The writer then goes on to discuss Forestville and suggests that the speed limit "may not be the only factor," but this point is not developed either. The author issues a generic call for more research and facts and offers an unsupported conclusion of his or her own: "Clearly, to reduce the speed limit?
would not eliminate the problem." Although the author appears to know that there is something wrong with the argument, he or she does not seem to know how to critique the argument in greater detail.
The response demonstrates adequate control of the elements of writing, but the analysis is so underdeveloped that it cannot earn a score higher than 3.
GRE写作满分范文赏析
Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour. Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent. But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period. Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.
At first look, this seems to be a very well presented arguement. A logical path is followed throughout the paragraph and the conclusion is expected. However, upon a second consideration, it is apparent that all possibilities were not considered when the author presented his conclusion (or at least that s/he did not present all of the possibilities). There are numerous potential explanations for why the number of accidents in Elmsford decreased while the number in Forestville increased. Although it seems logical to assume that the difference in the percentage of accidents was due to the difference in whether or not the speed limit had been increased during the specified month, this does not necessarily mean that the speed limit should be reduced back to what it originally was in Forestville. The author does not state two specific pieces of information that are important before a conclusion such as the one the author made is sound. The first is that it is not expressed whether the speed limits in the two neighboring regions had had the same speed limit before Forestville's speed limit had been increased. If they had originally been the same, then it is reasonable to conclude that Forestville's speed limit should be reduced back to what it was before the increase. However, if the two region's speed limits were initially different, then such a conclusion can not be made. The second piece of information that is necessary for the present argument is the relative number of accidents in each of the areas prior to the increase in speed limit. For the author to make the presented conclusion, the number of accidents should have been approximately equal prior to the increase in the speed limit in Forestville. If the two missing pieces of information had been presented and were in the author's favor, then the conclusion that the author made would have been much more sound than it currently is. In conclusion, the argument is not entirely well reasoned, but given the information that was expressed in the paragraph, it was presented well, and in a logical order. Comments:
This competent critique claims that there are "numerous potential explanations for why the number of accidents in Elmsford decreased while the number in Forestville increased." However, the author discusses only two points:
-- whether the speed limits in the two regions were originally the same; and
-- the number of accidents in each region prior to Forestville's raising the speed limit.
Although the response appears at first to be well developed, there is much less analysis here than the length would suggest. The first third and last third of the essay are relatively insubstantial, consisting mainly of general summary statements (e.g., "A logical path??? conclusion is expected" and "If the two??? more sound than it currently is"). The real heart of the critique consists of minimal development of the two points mentioned above. Therefore, although two important features of the argument are analyzed and the writer handles language and syntax adequately, the lack of substantial development keeps this critique from earning a score higher than 4.
GRE写作：高分冲刺相关文章：
★ 英语写作
