GRE寫作中能夠同時(shí)兼顧立論文ISSUE和駁論文ARGUMENT兩篇作文高分的考生較少，許多同學(xué)都是在保證一篇文章平均水平的前提下努力寫好另一篇文章來(lái)提分的。下面小編就和大家分享GRE寫作立論駁論文提分心得，來(lái)欣賞一下吧。

GRE寫作立論駁論文提分心得

GRE立論文issue經(jīng)驗(yàn)分享

對(duì)于立論文(Issue)說(shuō)，我覺得自己動(dòng)手?jǐn)M一份提綱是非常有用的，你可以參考各種資料，但必須勤動(dòng)腦，想一想提綱的邏輯連續(xù)性。實(shí)際上，有偏向性、但又不要絕對(duì)化的思路才是最易上手的。

GRE駁論文argument怎么練?

對(duì)于駁論文(Argument)而言，我認(rèn)為熟悉題庫(kù)更為重要。正常情況下是這樣的，但的確有些難題若不事先好好準(zhǔn)備，五分鐘之內(nèi)能找出兩個(gè)錯(cuò)誤就不錯(cuò)了。在第一次考試時(shí)，我正是因?yàn)樵跍?zhǔn)備時(shí)放掉了一道我只找出兩個(gè)錯(cuò)誤的題目，而在正式考試時(shí)恰恰碰到了這道題目，所以寫得很不好。

寫駁論文有很多小竅門，如需要鍛煉出區(qū)別“事實(shí)”和“觀點(diǎn)”的能力，不論題目中所給的事實(shí)有多夸張都需認(rèn)為它是對(duì)的，不能攻擊，只能攻擊觀點(diǎn)中的邏輯漏洞;凡是跟統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)字、統(tǒng)計(jì)方法有關(guān)的邏輯錯(cuò)誤都盡量不要攻擊，最多只能一筆帶過(guò)等等。

GRE作文邏輯重要嗎?

雖然邏輯作文滿分只有6分，可千萬(wàn)別小看了它的重要性。從某種程度上來(lái)說(shuō)，它是GRE的精華——因?yàn)镚RE考的就是邏輯，用英語(yǔ)寫兩篇作文只是形式而已，主要目的就是考察你的邏輯分析水平。

怎樣看待GRE作文中的語(yǔ)言水平?

至于GRE作文的語(yǔ)言，其實(shí)不是很重要，只要通順、沒有語(yǔ)法錯(cuò)誤就可以了，掌握了這些就可以更好地備考GRE作文。希望可以給大家一些參考，從而更好地備考GRE閱讀考試。

GRE寫作滿分范文

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寫作滿分范文

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.??

The?agrument?is?well-presented,?but?not?thoroughly?well-reasoned.??By?making?a?comparison?of?the?region?of?Forestville,?the?town?with?the?higher?speed?limit?and?therefore?automobile?accidents,?with?the?region?of?Elmsford,?an?area?of?a?lower?speed?limit?and?subsequently?fewer?accidents,?the?argument?for?reducing?Forestville's?speed?limits?in?order?to?decrease?accidents?seems?logical.??

However,?the?citizens?of?Forestville?are?failing?to?consider?other?possible?alternatives?to?the?increasing?car?accidents?after?the?raise?in?speed?limit.??Such?alternatives?may?include?the?fact?that?there?are?less?reliable?cars?traveling?the?roads?in?Forestville,?or?that?the?age?bracket?of?those?in?Elmsford?may?be?more?conducive?to?driving?safely.??It?is?possible?that?there?are?more?younger,?inexperienced,?or?more?elderly,?unsafe?drivers?in?Forestville?than?there?are?in?Elmsford.??In?addition,?the?citizens?have?failed?to?consider?the?geographical?and?physical?terrain?of?the?two?different?areas.??Perhaps?Forestville's?highway?is?in?an?area?of?more?dangerous?curves,?sharp?turns,?or?has?many?intersections?or?merging?points?where?accidents?are?more?likely?to?occur.??It?appears?reasonable,?therefore,?for?the?citizens?to?focus?on?these?trouble?spots?than?to?reduce?the?speed?in?the?entire?area.??Elmsford?may?be?an?area?of?easier?driving?conditions?where?accidents?are?less?likely?to?occur?regardless?of?the?speed?limit.??

A?six-month?period?is?not?a?particularly?long?time?frame?for?the?citizens?to?determine?that?speed?limit?has?influenced?the?number?of?automobile?accidents?in?the?area.??It?is?mentioned?in?the?argument?that?Elmsford?accidents?decreased?during?the?time?period.??This?may?have?been?a?time,?such?as?during?harsh weather?conditions,?when?less?people?were?driving?on?the?road?and?therefore?the?number?of?accidents?decreased.??However,?Forestville?citizens,?perhaps?coerced?by?employment?or?other?requirements,?were?unable?to?avoid?driving?on?the?roads.??Again,?the?demographics?of?the?population?are?important.??It?is?possible?that?Elmsford?citizens?do?not?have?to?travel?far?from?work?or?work?from?their?home,?or?do?not?work?at?all.??Are?there?more?people?in?Forestville?than?there?were?sic?months?ago???If?so,?there?may?be?an?increased?number?of?accidents?due?to?more?automobiles?on?the?road,?and?not?due?to?the?increased?speed?limits.??Also?in?reference?to?the?activities?of?the?population,?it?is?possible?that?Forestville?inhabitants?were?traveling?during?less?safe?times?of?the?day,?such?as?early?in?the?morning,?or?during?twilight.??Work?or?family?habits?may?have?encouraged?citizens?to?drive?during?this?time?when?Elmsford?residents?may?not?have?been?forced?to?do?so.??

Overall,?the?reasoning?behind?decreasing?Forestville's?speed?limit?back?to?its?original?seems?logical?as?presented?above?since?the?citizens?are?acting?in?their?own?best?interests?and?want?to?protect?their?safety.??However,?before?any?final?decisions?are?made?about?the?reduction?in?speed?limit,?the?citizens?and?officials?of?Forestville?should?evaluate?all?possible?alternatives?and?causes?for?the?increased?number?of?accidents?over?the?six-month?period?as?compared?to?Elmsford.?Comments:?

This?outstanding?response?begins?by?noting?that?the?argument?is?"well?presented."??It?then?proceeds?to?discuss?possible?alternative?explanations?for?the?increase?in?car?accidents?and?provides?an?impressively?full?analysis.??Alternatives?mentioned?are?that???

--?the?two?regions?might?have?drivers?of?different?ages?and?experience;?--?Forestville's?topography,?geography,?cars,?and/or?roads?might????contribute?to?accidents;?

--?six?months?might?be?an?insufficient?amount?of?time?for?determining????that?the?speed?limit?is?linked?to?the?accident?rate;?--?demographics?might?play?a?role?in?auto?accidents;?--?population?and?auto?density?should?be?considered;?and?

--?the?times?of?day?when?drivers?in?the?two?regions?travel?might?be?relevant.??

The?points?are?cogently?developed?and?are?linked?in?such?a?way?as?to?create?a?logically?organized?critique.??Transitions?together?with?interior?connections?create?a?smoothly?integrated?presentation.??For?the?most?part,?the?writer?uses?language?correctly?and?well?and?provides?excellent?variety?in?syntax.??The?minor?flaws?(e.g.,?using?"less"?instead?of?"fewer")?do?not?detract?from?the?overall?high?quality?of?the?critique.??This?is?an?impressive?6?paper.?