GRE考試作為美國(guó)教育機(jī)構(gòu)ETS主辦的考試，其題目設(shè)置上是有著強(qiáng)烈的美國(guó)文化色彩的，這一點(diǎn)在GRE寫作中尤為明顯。下面小編就和大家分享從GRE寫作中折射出的美國(guó)文化看高分作文思路要求，希望能夠幫助到大家，來欣賞一下吧。

從GRE寫作中折射出的美國(guó)文化看高分作文思路要求

二元性思考是GRE作文題目設(shè)置的本質(zhì)所在

談到美國(guó)文化，人們首先想到的是可能是美劇，好萊塢，漢堡薯?xiàng)l，NBA，NFL，蘋果等等。當(dāng)然不可否認(rèn)，美國(guó)正通過娛樂，體育，餐飲，高科技等渠道向全世界輻射其文化。但如果透過這些表象去窺探其深層的內(nèi)涵，那么我們就會(huì)看到包容，開明的思想自始至終都是這個(gè)國(guó)度最為閃耀標(biāo)志。這一標(biāo)志集中體現(xiàn)在其三權(quán)(Executive, Legislative, Judicial) 分立的政府結(jié)構(gòu)，民主共和兩黨，與參眾兩院的政體之中。是的，“二”在美國(guó)文化中是一個(gè)受歡迎的數(shù)字，因?yàn)?“Two is simply more than one”。雖然說“二”，或更準(zhǔn)確的說是“二元性”，并不一定能夠包含世上所有的人群，觀點(diǎn)，思想與方式，當(dāng)這確實(shí)是最接近普世價(jià)值與本質(zhì)的實(shí)用模型。對(duì)于GRE寫作，一個(gè)核心的思想就是 “two-way thinking”，也就是一分為二的分析方法，這種思想強(qiáng)調(diào)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)與沖突，是一種動(dòng)態(tài)的平衡，也是激勵(lì)人們不斷挑戰(zhàn)自我的最為有效的機(jī)制。

GRE寫作題目反應(yīng)美國(guó)社會(huì)生活

很多GRE寫作的題目都是美國(guó)社會(huì)的縮影，如Argument的內(nèi)容也時(shí)常涉及普通人的生活。像 movie theater 中的 video arcade (電子游戲機(jī))，all female (如Wheaton College，原先為女校)/coeducation，保健食品連鎖店(其原型為GNC)，Jazz Club (其實(shí)個(gè)人經(jīng)驗(yàn)認(rèn)為在美國(guó)不主流)等等。雖說我們?cè)趯懽髦兄饕窃谫|(zhì)疑其推理過程與結(jié)論的合理性，但這些素材包括其結(jié)論通常都反映了美國(guó)社會(huì)的客觀事實(shí)。在Argument的題庫(kù)中，有一類非常獨(dú)特的問題是跟賺錢相關(guān) (profit, profitable, profitability)，也就是公司怎樣才能盈利。我們知道美國(guó)文化是典型的重商主義的文化，基本上一切事情都是以是否能賺錢作為評(píng)判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的。美國(guó)人很會(huì)賺錢，而且不需要用到地溝油。這就是為什么世界上最成功的商業(yè)咨詢公司都來自美國(guó)，而在這些公司中，segmentation(細(xì)分)是比較核心的思想，這也與Issue寫作中的分類討論的分析思想高度吻合的。

除此之外，GRE寫作處處反映了美國(guó)的主流文化與思維方式。當(dāng)然，ETS設(shè)計(jì)的GRE考試并不是要你 “Don’t fight, just accept.”，而是希望聽到你獨(dú)特的聲音。因此，希望大家能以更加積極的心態(tài)去備考，并把這種思想延伸到今后的生活中去。

GRE寫作高分范文：道德與法律

Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system because moral behavior cannot be legislated.

現(xiàn)代社會(huì)的很多問題是法律和立法系統(tǒng)無法解決的，因?yàn)榈赖滦袨槭菬o法用法律約束的。

GRE寫作范文：

The proposition asserts that the laws and the legal system cannot resolve many problems problem of the modern society since moral behavior cannot be legislated. In my point of view, I fundamentally agree with the speaker, as discussed below.

First of all, I concede that the laws and the legal system are essential to the modern society and they can resolve many problems. Common sense tells us that everyone has his own position and behavior, depending on their beliefs, experiences, knowledge, professions and emotional concern.However, we cannot simply let everyone do everything that he or she wants, since this will lead to mess and may harm the stability of the society. Thus, the government has to announce the laws and build a just legal system to restrict the citizens. Only by doing this, can the society get to a balance and harmonious status? For instance, the industrial factories want to expel the polluted water into the river without making it clean. If there is not a law or a legal system to restrict the factories from expelling the polluted water, the poisoned water may get into the river, even the sea. This will be really harmful. It may firstly kill the animals living in the river, it may also further harm the human beings if they have drunk the water or eaten the polluted fish. It may bring damage to the environment as well. Considering this, we have to establish laws to prevent the factories from expelling polluted water and other detriments. From this case, we can see how important laws and legal systems are.

However, we have to admit that the laws and the legal systems cannot resolve many problems in the modern society as well, such as the usage of euthanasia, the homosexual marriage. When the Watson and Crick found the double-helix structure of the gene and the scientists further found the way to clone. It brings many social problems that the laws and legal systems cannot resolve. Should the scientists clone human beings? If yes, then what is the relationship between the two? Do the cloned people have the same right with the other human being or even whether they are human beings or not? Though the legal systems in many countries ban the scientists from cloning people, some scientists still do this secretly. All these questions cannot simply be resolved by the laws as it is related to the morality.

Additionally, the laws can not involve the moral behavior. If the laws consider the moral behaviors too much, it will lose justice. Nevertheless, only considering the laws without morals may cause mistake. For instance, in India, their law is statutes given by the government and the judge can only his judges on the bases of the existing laws. Once, a mother in India killed her son,who is a murderer and did lots of bad things. The police in India tried to catch him for years without any result. He committed so many crimes that even death cannot atone for the offence.His mother knows that her son will kill many more people if she does not kill him. Thus, when her son came back to see her one day, she killed him with the poison. In this case, to kill the mother is probably not the best choice, since this may make people think that being just is wrong. But according to the present law, the judger had to sentenced the mother to death, and this brought a widely debate thought out the country.

Further, only the morality can make people to understand what is right and what is wrong, and to restrict people with morality will be a good way. Under the pressure of laws and legal systems,many people just do the bad thing secretly because they do not know that they are wrong. And many people may even think that the laws are wrong and disobey or even resist the law. They may commit crimes again after they are punished. Only when a people have known the morality and find the right measurement to distinguish right and wrong, they can find their mistakes and become a better person. A statistics involving many prisons in China find that the prisoners who learn morality and know their mistakes have a much lower rate of committing crime again.

In the final analysis, we can see that the laws and legal system cannot resolve all the problems in the society and therefore we should agree with the author.

GRE寫作高分范文：名人觀點(diǎn)

GRE寫作范文：

When famous people give their opinions, many people listen. Should we pay attention to those remarks?

When Tom Cruise once appeared in a TV program, he was too excited so he jumped up and down the couch. Later “jump the couch” was adopted in the American dictionary for slang. This is a bit exaggerating, but it definitely reflects the fact that when famous people give their opinions, many people listen. But, should we pay attention to these remarks or actions?

Firstly, famous people are “famous”, for they have one or few aspects that exceed common people. Like Albert Einstein once said, “I think and think for months, for years, ninety-nine times the conclusion false, but the hundredth time I am right.” As a brilliant scientist, he speaks of the right attitudes towards science and inspires countless people to fight for the truth. Hollywood actors or actresses, they may talk about their dressing styles or skin cares on magazine. These are all advice that we might as well take, for real life is not just serious academic things but also the satisfaction of living.

But the point is that, celebrities are not perfect role models for the public. Once I heard a story about Einstein, saying that he nearly got into the water when he once harassed a young lady and got refused when they were in a boat in a park. Is Einstein evil somehow? No! He’s just being human. Then is it wrong to harass ladies? Yes. But all humans make mistakes. Celebrities are experts in certain areas but not all. In some other fields, they should even learn from us.

Generally, there are two extremes when talking about celebrities: the public are either too critical or too superstitious. Objectively, both of the attitudes are unnecessary. As a Chinese saying which generalizes this situation the best goes: to take in the good, while to get rid of the bad.