GRE写作：写作论据的技巧最新.docx

GRE写作：写作论据的技巧GRE写作：写作论据的技巧 例证是第一举荐的论证方法。首先写作文不像做数学题目：照着公理定律往下一步步推就行了。现实世界中放之四海而皆准的东西寥寥无几，用逻辑的方法推演往往会使文章显得劝服力不强。其次，推理对语言的要求往往比叙事要高得多;要是再用英文写作，犯错误的概率就更大了。再次，虽说字数不是最重要的，但肯定的字数对于想拿高分的同学还是特别必要的;而从字数上来考虑，例证要占优势。 每一个argument都有它的独特性，关键是通过总结模版了解怎样论述批驳一个观点，说明一个问题的思路很重要，针对性也很重要。有的题目，假如用例子来说明，会更好一些，事实胜于雄辩吗。 文章有没有劝服力，其实例子几个就够了。所举例子肯定要能充分证明论点，因为例子不好不恰当几乎是每篇文章都有的问题。关键是能不能敏捷的应用，能不能服务于论点，还有就是生活中身边的例子我们最最熟识的那些才是最生动的，最独特的，也是最有劝服力的，尤其是教化类能用上许多。一般最有劝服力的不是那些放之四海皆准的闪光句型。例子是很特性化的东西，大家都用一样的例子，又有什么意思?例子的选择不肯定必需是名人名言或名人的事迹，也不肯定非得投老外的口味，用外国的例子，身边的小事也可以的，能充分证明观点即可。 运用和自己生活、专业结合比较多的例子。比较好的缘由有二：一是自己比较熟识，可以自圆其说，二是就是自己的东西，不用花太多心思去背。当然了，这不是说，不须要你去扩充你的例子，而是要有针对性的去扩充，有一些可以普遍运用的例子还是应当娴熟驾驭的。可以找些这种用途广泛的例子储备。 GRE写作满分范文赏析 The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland. Since the residents are changing the original statement that complies with the conditions of what an undeveloped site is, it is their responsibility to make sure that certain restrictions are followed. According to the definition of undeveloped land, keeping the natural elements and avoiding the tearing down of this elements is an issue to consider even if it is a school built on the site. Even though the residents originally wanted to keep the property undeveloped and unbuilt, the fact that they emphasize that this area will subtantially be devoted to athletic fields, strongly supports the idea of the residents using the land for similar activities than that of the public parkland, . Moreover, the fact that the residents mentioned the community as being one where children will be the main participants of this area is persuasive enough to make this argument a strong one. Comments: This response is seriously flawed. The first paragraph obliquely addresses the argument made in the topic, but stops short of logical analysis. The second paragraph agrees with the argument and supports its assumptions. In essence, the writer exhibits an uncritical acceptance of the argument. Aside from a few minor errors, the writer has control over syntax, grammar, and the conventions of standard written English. This response, though, warrants a score of 2, because it offers no discernible analysis of the logic of the argument. GRE写作满分范文赏析 The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland. The author's argument is weak. Though he believes Scott Woods benefits the community as an undeveloped park, he also thinks a school should be built on it. Obviously the author is not aware of the development that comes with building a school besides the facilities devoted to learning or sports. He does not realize that parking lots will take up a substantial area of property, especially if the school proposed is a high school. We are not given this information, nor the size of the student body that will be attending, nor the population of the city itself, so it is unclear whether the damage will be great or marginal. For a better argument, the author should consider questions like what sort of natural resources are present on the land that will not remain once the school is built? Are there endangered species whose homes will be lost? And what about digging up the land for water lines? It is doubtful whether the integrity of Scott Woods as natural parkland can be maintained once the land has been developed. It is true that a school would probably not cause as much damage as a shopping center or housing development, but the author must consider whether the costs incurred in losing the park-like aspects of the property are worth developing it, when there could be another, more suitable site. He should also consider how the city will pay for the property, whether taxes will be raised to compensate for the expense or whether a shopping center will be built somewhere else to raise funds. He has not given any strong reasons for the idea of building a school, including what kind of land the property is, whether it is swampland that will have to be drained or an arid, scrubby lot that will need extensive maintenance to keep up the athletic greens. The author should also consider the opposition, such as the people without children who have no interest in more athletic fields. He must do a better job of presenting his case, addressing each point named above, for if the land is as much a popular community resource as he implies, he will face a tough time gaining allies to change a park to a school. Comments: After describing the argument as weak, this strong response goes straight to the heart of the matter: building a school is not (as the argument seems to assume) innocuous; rather, it involves substantial development. The essay identifies several reasons to support this critique. The writer then points to the important questions that must be answered before accepting the proposal. These address - the costs versus the benefits of developing Scott Woods - the impact of development on Scott Woods - the possibility of another, more suitable site The generally thoughtful analysis notes still more flaws in the argument: - whether the school is necessary - whether the selected site is appropriate - whether some groups might oppose the plan Although detailed and comprehensive, the writer's critique is neither as fully developed nor as tightly organized as required for a 6 essay. The response exhibits good control of language, although there is some awkward phrasing (e.g., .?爂aining allies to change a park to a school). Overall, this essay warrants a score of 5 because it is well developed, clearly organized, and shows facility with language. GRE写作：写作论据的技巧