GRE寫(xiě)作的ARGUMENT在大家看來(lái)似乎難度要比ISSUE更低一些。畢竟有現(xiàn)成的材料，考生只需要從里面挑出邏輯漏洞就行。今天小編給大家?guī)?lái)了GRE寫(xiě)作體現(xiàn)駁論水準(zhǔn)寫(xiě)法精析 ,希望能夠幫助到大家，一起來(lái)學(xué)習(xí)吧。

GRE寫(xiě)作體現(xiàn)駁論水準(zhǔn)寫(xiě)法精析

GRE寫(xiě)作正文篇幅要求介紹

GRE作文的字?jǐn)?shù)篇幅一直都是考生比較關(guān)注的問(wèn)題。大家既擔(dān)心寫(xiě)得太少被扣分，又害怕要寫(xiě)太多內(nèi)容時(shí)間不夠用。實(shí)際上這些擔(dān)心都是沒(méi)有必要的。GRE考試官方ETS沒(méi)有在評(píng)分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)中對(duì)作文的字?jǐn)?shù)給出明確的要求和限制，考生只需要保證文章完整性以及內(nèi)容的充實(shí)度即可。按照官方給出的幾篇范文來(lái)看，GRE寫(xiě)作ARGUMENT正文段一般以2-3段為主，也就是2-3個(gè)邏輯漏洞，大家可以按照漏洞的嚴(yán)重性從大到小排列的順序來(lái)進(jìn)行展開(kāi)，也可以結(jié)合一些讓步寫(xiě)法進(jìn)行正文段落之間的邏輯連接?？偠灾忌ＷC把每個(gè)邏輯漏洞都寫(xiě)清楚，論述內(nèi)容要有實(shí)質(zhì)性的干貨。只要能做到這一點(diǎn)就足夠了，篇幅方面無(wú)需太過(guò)擔(dān)心。

GRE寫(xiě)作正文段3步寫(xiě)法講解

下面小編就來(lái)具體講解一下GRE寫(xiě)作ARGUMENT正文每個(gè)段落的3步寫(xiě)法：

1. 陳述邏輯漏洞

ARGUMENT正文段落寫(xiě)法的第一步就是陳述漏洞，也就是說(shuō)明題目給出的素材到底哪里存在邏輯問(wèn)題?？忌枰⒁鈨牲c(diǎn)。首先不能直接照搬原文，涉及都漏洞的內(nèi)容最好用自己的話加工改寫(xiě)一下再寫(xiě)出來(lái)，避免可能遭遇的抄襲雷同判定。其次是陳述漏洞需要簡(jiǎn)單明了，陳述中不能繞圈子或者講不到重點(diǎn)廢話連篇。一般來(lái)說(shuō)，引用原文加上陳述漏洞的部分需要控制在1-2句話內(nèi)完成。

2. 反駁邏輯漏洞

在陳述了邏輯漏洞之后，接下來(lái)考生就需要對(duì)這個(gè)漏洞進(jìn)行反駁。反駁的方法有很多，考生可以通過(guò)講道理來(lái)指出為什么這個(gè)邏輯有問(wèn)題站不住腳，也可以直接舉出反例來(lái)進(jìn)行駁論。很多考生覺(jué)得駁論就是要用例子來(lái)打臉，這種看法不能說(shuō)錯(cuò)誤，但至少是不完整的。如果考生能夠只靠講道理就把問(wèn)題說(shuō)清楚邏輯講通順，那么即使不提出例證素材也是完全可行的。但如果大家覺(jué)得自己的論述缺乏說(shuō)服力沒(méi)有可信度，那么還是盡量加入一些實(shí)證為好。

3. 給出應(yīng)對(duì)方法

可能許多考生覺(jué)得ARGUMENT正文中反駁完漏洞就算寫(xiě)完了，其實(shí)這樣的論述并不完整。考生在反駁完漏洞以后，其實(shí)還需要做一件事，那就是給出一定的應(yīng)對(duì)和解決漏洞的方法。當(dāng)然，這個(gè)給出應(yīng)對(duì)方法的部分不需要寫(xiě)很多，考生只需要一句話帶過(guò)就足夠了。

ARGUMENT正文段落之間的銜接方式

另外，考生除了要寫(xiě)好每一個(gè)正文段落外，段落之間也需要注意一下銜接?，F(xiàn)在比較多的ARGUMENT正文段，考生都會(huì)用FIRST, SECOND這樣直接數(shù)數(shù)的方式來(lái)開(kāi)頭，這種承上啟下的方式其實(shí)是比較生硬的。如前文提到過(guò)的讓步式寫(xiě)法就要更加自然順暢一些，考生第一個(gè)正文段先指出某個(gè)邏輯漏洞并完成反駁攻擊后，開(kāi)始第二個(gè)正文段時(shí)可以用“即使第一個(gè)漏洞能夠解決，但還有下面這個(gè)漏洞”這樣的方式，也就是通過(guò)讓步承認(rèn)第一個(gè)漏洞來(lái)銜接之后的段落。這樣的寫(xiě)法能夠讓文章的各個(gè)正文段更好地融合在一起，形成一個(gè)更為完整的文章論述結(jié)構(gòu)。

GRE寫(xiě)作高分范文：批判性思維

GRE寫(xiě)作范文：

Too much time, money, and energy are spent developing new and more elaborate technology. Society should instead focus on maximizing the use of existing technology for the immediate benefit of its citizens.

I must say that I reject this statement. While it is true that we need to support society as much as possible with current technology, that does not in any way mean that we should stop progressing simply because our current technology cannot handle all the problems we have brought to it. Does that mean that we should simply accept the status quo and make do? No, I don’t think so. To do so would be tantamount to adopting a fatalistic approach; I think most people would reject that.

Technology has helped, and it has hurt. Without it, we would never have our standard of living, nor quality of nutrition, expectation of a long and productive life span, and the unshakable belief that our lives can be made even better. But it has also brought us universal pollution, weapons so powerful as to be capable of rendering us extinct, and the consequent fear for our survival as species and as a planet. Technology is indeed a double-edged sword. And yet, I still have to argue in its favor, because without it, we have no hope.

Some might argue that we would be better off without technology. They might say that a return to a less technologically driven approach to life would have the benefits of reducing stress and allowing us to live simpler, happier lives, like those of our forebears. Such an idea is seductive, so much so that much of art and all of nostalgia are devoted to it. But upon closer inspection, one realizes that such a move would only return us to a life of different kinds of stress, one of false simplicity, one fraught with danger. It would be a life

without antibiotics where a minor cut could prove deadly. It would be a life where childbirth is the main killer of women, and where an emergency is dealt with in terms of hours and days instead of minutes and hours; a life where there are no phones or cars or planes or central heating, no proven drug therapies to treat mental illness, no computers. Would this world really make people happy?

What we already have, we have. And since the only way to move is forward, instead of allowing ourselves to be paralyzed by fear and worry, we need to learn how to clean up the pollution we have caused, and how to deal with a world that feeds on weapons and mass destruction. Doing these things means having to move away from technology into a more difficult realm, that of diplomacy and compromise: to move from the bully stance of “I am bigger and better and I have more toys and so I win” to a place where everyone wins.

Technology is the thing that will allow people to do that. But, advanced as it is, it is still in its infancy. We have to allow it to grow up and mature in order to reap the real rewards that it can bring. And there are even greater rewards ahead of us than what the world has already experienced. When technology is pushed to the outer edge, that is where serendipitous discoveries can occur. This has been seen throughout technological advancement, but the easiest example is probably the space program which made us think, really hard, about how to do things in a different environment. It gave us telecommunications, new fabrics and international cooperation. Paramedical devices, so that people can be treated even as they are being transported to the hosptal, are a direct development of that technology. None of this would have happened in the time frame that it did if we had not pushed for technological advancement. If we had decided to

第二段：

(概述科技的兩面性)Technology has helped, and it has hurt. (具體討論科技的貢獻(xiàn))Without it, we would never have our standard of living, nor quality of nutrition, expectation of a long and productive life span, and the unshakable belief that our lives can be made even better. (具體討論科技的危害)But it has also brought us universal pollution, weapons so powerful as to be capable of rendering us extinct, and the consequent fear for our survival as species and as a planet. Technology is indeed a double-edged sword. (表明已考慮到科技的危害，但是依然堅(jiān)持自己立場(chǎng))And yet, I still have to argue in its favor, because without it, we have no hope.

第三段：

(提出反方的立場(chǎng))Some might argue that we would be better off without technology. They might say that a return to a less technologically driven approach to life would have the benefits of reducing stress and allowing us to live simpler, happier lives, like those of our forebears. Such an idea is seductive, so much so that much of art and all of nostalgia are devoted to it. (通過(guò)具體論據(jù)反駁反方的觀點(diǎn))But upon closer inspection, one realizes that such a move would only return us to a life of different kinds of stress, one of false simplicity, one fraught with danger. It would be a life without antibiotics where a minor cut could prove deadly. It would be a life where childbirth is the main killer of women, and where an emergency is dealt with in terms of hours and days instead of minutes and hours; a life where there are no phones or cars or planes or central heating, no proven drug therapies to treat mental illness, no computers. Would this world really make people happy?

第四段：

(在第三段駁論的基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)一步立論)What we already have, we have. And since the only way to move is forward, instead of allowing ourselves to be paralyzed by fear and worry, we need to learn how to clean up the pollution we have caused, and how to deal with a world that feeds on weapons and mass destruction. Doing these things means having to move away from technology into a more difficult realm, that of diplomacy and compromise: to move from the bully stance of “I am bigger and better and I have more toys and so I win” to a place where everyone wins.

第五段：

Technology is the thing that will allow people to do that. (指出支持觀點(diǎn)存在的一點(diǎn)不足)But, advanced as it is, it is still in its infancy. (解決方案)We have to allow it to grow up and mature in order to reap the real rewards that it can bring. And there are even greater rewards ahead of us than what the world has already experienced. When technology is pushed to the outer edge, that is where serendipitous discoveries can occur. This has been seen throughout technological advancement, but the easiest example is probably the space program which made us think, really hard, about how to do things in a different environment. It gave us telecommunications, new fabrics and international cooperation. Paramedical devices, so that people can be treated even as they are being transported to the hospital, are a direct development of that technology. None of this would have happened in the time frame that it did if we had not pushed for technological advancement. If we had decided to “focus on maximizing the use of existing technology” instead of foolishly reaching for the stars, we would not have made those discoveries which now are the bedrock of the 21st century.

gre滿分作文重點(diǎn)：Critical Thinking.當(dāng)然，提高critical thinking能力的同時(shí)，也很有必要包裝語(yǔ)言。

GRE寫(xiě)作：短期內(nèi)怎樣提高

Argument句型

開(kāi)頭

In this analysis, the arguer claims that …should …To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the example of …where …In addition, the arguer assumes that …This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

正文：

For instance …since …what’s more …etc.

and how well it represented the public opinions..

The sample of the survey is not representative.

(樣本太小)

the sample is too small to...

(光數(shù)字沒(méi)比例)

the ratio of four to six

there is only figures but no proportion of the survey 還是ratio?

Insufficient Sample

If the [respondents] only stand for a tiny proportion of the whole [group], we should not be so sure about the conclusion that [the whole group…]

The arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization.

It was only carried out in Sun City, but the arguer applies its result to all the company’s markets while doesn’t show us whether Sun City is a representative market of the whole markets.

有的病人會(huì)對(duì)抗生素過(guò)敏

the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if the maintenance of the airline has been improved as a result of sending its mechanics to the Seminar, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that就算怎樣，也不怎樣

The survey is based on two isolated examples. The arguer should survey more hospitals of both types.

循環(huán)假設(shè)

The arguer commits a fallacy of begging the question in assuming that …

結(jié)尾：

other possible causes of the …

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands.