為了讓準(zhǔn)備GRE考試的考生不要太盲目，無所適從，下面小編就和大家分享GRE考試備考策略及注意內(nèi)容,希望能夠幫助到大家，來欣賞一下吧。

GRE考試備考策略及注意內(nèi)容

1提前熟悉問題類型和方向。

2.注意回答時間。

3在回答之前一定要閱讀問題和選項。一部分是對的，沒有得分。

4回答每一個問題，即使你不得不猜測。

5面對不熟悉的問題，你可以借助內(nèi)在的知識找出答案。

6.不要在你認(rèn)為特別困難的話題上花太多時間。因為每個問題的分?jǐn)?shù)都是一樣的。

7號。不要花太多時間瀏覽網(wǎng)頁，因為它會占用你回答問題的時間。

8個。在提交每個部分的答案之前，您可以通過瀏覽頁面來檢查是否已回答了所有問題。

gre寫作的建議與策略

1仔細(xì)閱讀這兩篇文章的評分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，gre考試技巧, gre備考要多久以便更好地了解評論者是如何評分的，以及他們關(guān)注哪些因素。

2.在時機成熟的情況下寫作。

3注意主題中的具體要求，確保你的作文與主題相關(guān)。

4提前組織思路和提綱。

5在分析問題的寫作部分，你應(yīng)該用閱讀、個人經(jīng)歷、觀察或?qū)W習(xí)中積累的原因或例子來支持自己的觀點。

6.每一篇文章完成后，留些時間通讀，做必要的修改，糾正明顯的錯誤。

7盡量避免太多的諷刺或幽默，以免被評論家誤讀。

gre文本推理的建議與策略

1.首先閱讀文章的所有段落，在回答問題之前理解文章的大意。

2.根據(jù)課文內(nèi)容回答問題，而不是根據(jù)外部知識。

3。用選擇填空，然后再讀一遍，以確保段落清楚。

4。試著用自己的語言填空，gre考試技巧, gre備考要多久然后找出與意思相符的選擇。

5找出那些看起來特別重要的單詞和句子。

gre定量推理的建議與策略

1幾何圖形不一定按比例繪制，因此不要使用目視檢查或測量來估計尺寸。

2.如果可以，請繪制自己的圖表或列表以幫助確定主題中的問題。

3如果可行，盡量采用減量法、數(shù)量比較法、數(shù)字模型法等方法，避免計算冗長。

4注意進度。如果一個問題拖延或計算方法花費了太多時間，你應(yīng)該改變你的策略。

5計算完答案后，再看一遍這個問題，以確保你的答案是合理的。

GRE注意事項：

1、至少提前半小時到達考場。

2、只有持有身份證相關(guān)證件和材料才能進入考場。

3、考試結(jié)束后，一般安排在兩篇作文和兩節(jié)語文數(shù)學(xué)課后。注意休息和飲食以補充體力。

4、學(xué)生的語文和數(shù)學(xué)成績將在考試結(jié)束后立即顯示出來，gre考試技巧, gre備考要多久他們可以填寫學(xué)校代碼免費送分。考試前，你可以記住你想申請的學(xué)校代碼，并當(dāng)場填寫。離開考場后，請?zhí)顚懖⒓牡椒衷菏杖☆~外費用。

5、考試成績一般在考試后10天左右正式公布。你可以通過官方網(wǎng)站查看分?jǐn)?shù)。如果你對考試成績不是很滿意，也可以在考試結(jié)束后立即取消分?jǐn)?shù)。

6、報名間隔：目前正式規(guī)定，兩次考試間隔時間至少為20天，一年內(nèi)考試的最大次數(shù)為5次。

7、GRE成績有效期為5年：考生可以從過去5年的所有成績中選出最滿意的考試成績，并將其發(fā)送給感興趣的院校。報考的院校只能看到考生選擇發(fā)給他們的分?jǐn)?shù)，不知道考生是否參加過多次GRE考試。因此，如果考生對考試成績不滿意，可以選擇繼續(xù)參加考試，直到他有一個更好的分?jǐn)?shù)。

GRE作文范文：laws

GRE寫作練習(xí)題目：laws

It is possible to pass laws that control or place limits on people's behavior， but legislation cannot reform human nature. Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts and minds.

通過法律可以控制或者限制人們的行為，但是立法是無法改變?nèi)祟惐拘缘?。法律無法改變?nèi)藗兊母星楹退枷搿?/p>

GRE寫作范文：

Ever since the Code of Hammurapi comes into being， laws have begun to put restrictions on people's behaviors and have played an important role in the maintenance of social order. But aside from its impact on shaping public deportment， legislation is of no avail to reform human nature as well as mankind thoughts.

Our collective life experience is that we make choices and decisions every day--under a legal system. No one is ever granted the rights to surpass the boundary of laws; otherwise there may be lack of protection for private property and personal right from being violated. Common sense tells us that the laws will punish the wrongdoers severely sometimes so harshly even to sentence the felons to death. It is the awe to controlling authority as well as the fear of castigation that made most of the people away from the illicit behaviors. Laws， for better or worse， have put up a paradigm on which people abide by， for the sake of personal interests and the social stability as well.

Laws can exert their influences on people's “hands and legs”， but when it comes to man's hearts and minds， it cannot. In the long history of its development， laws change over time and vary from region to region not to alter human nature but to be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances， times and places. The end of a legal system impels laws to evolve to keep pace with changing mores， customers， and our collective sense of equity but with little concern for the reconstruction of human thoughts. Bigamy， to be commonly regarded as illegal in most countries， is yet legitimate in some Arabian countries. For Islamic， outlawing bigamy seems an impinge upon their religious freedom of choosing mates. Instead of bringing about a revolution in the conception of marriage among Islamic disciples， laws give way to the entrenched customers. Still more， from the psychotic analysis angle， that laws will change nature is further doubted. Sigmund Freud has divided the individual personality into threefold： the id， the ego and the super ego. The ego， as the surface of the nature and the part you show the world， is governed by the “reality principle，” otherwise known as laws.

However， so powerless are laws to extend its impacts on the id and the superego remains below， each has its own significant effects on the personality. A rapist， for example， despite years of imprisonment may still relapse into outrages in that laws fail to civilize the id desires composing of instinctual drives. By no means can laws alone alter our nature. Were laws by itself be able to cause a change in the human nature and exercise a fundamental influence on people's hearts and minds， then it would probably be no need for its existence. People at no time can ever have imagined this.

In fact， to truly change the human nature， it is through the synergic efforts associating the education， moral and ethic social interactions altogether that brought about a reconstruction of human nature.

In conclusion， in spite the fact that we may live in a harmonious society with the implementation of the laws， it seems unthinkable for laws to undertake the role as a reformer in rebuilding man's nature as well as hearts and minds.

GRE寫作高分范文：審查的公正性

GRE作文題目：

Censorship is rarely, if ever, justified.

審查很少能夠做到公正。

GRE寫作正文：

“Censorship” is a word which seems to be authoritative rather than democratic, which implies the will of the governors rather than the will of general people. Since the occurrence of the censorship, which could be traced back to the Ancient Rome, it has been playing an important part in the domestic affairs while arousing applause and condemnation as well. Here the our government faces a dilemma, is it fair to carry on the censorship at the cost of sacrificing part of democracy, or just open the gate letting flows of ideas and thoughts in, at the risk of losing its own rampart.

Since censorship suggest an act of changing or suppressing speech, writing or any other forms of expression that is condemned as subversive of the common good, it must have a close relationship with the one who applies such supervision, and the word “common good” should be redefined under different conditions. There is time when we were all under a powerful monarchy, and the “common good” is the “monarch good”, then the censorship itself is the instrument of the monarch which solely depended on the will of the monarch; in the Middle Ages, both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Churches practiced censorship that seemed to be oppressive to any ideas challenging the doctrines of churches and the existence of God; even now, in some authoritative countries, the censorship is used to rule its people by restricting their minds, of course, for the stability of their governing over the people. With these regards, censorship itself is questioned at the rationality of existing, regardless of the practices made by the democratic government, while the justice of the democratic government is quite doubtable.

The matter concerning is not only who practices the censorship but also how it is practiced. Since different men make different comments on the same work of art, for example, it is hard to set up a measure by which we could decide whether one should be prohibited, especially to the work of arts, as its content always labeled as “subversive” and “revolutionary”, two words detested by the governors most. Such cases could be found in Ulysses by J. Joyce and Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H Lawrence, these two great novels were firstly considered to be guilty of obscenity and were put to prohibition by the American government, but turned out to be true masterpieces today. So any form of censorship, to some extent, lags behind the development of ideas and will put more or less a negative effect on their development.

Though the censorship is such a disgusting word embodying so much oppression and might, it is a compromise we made with the reality far from being perfect, to provide a comparative stable ground which we could stand on. At this point, I don’t agree with the institute like ACLU who oppose any censorship. The censorship, though rarely justified, should exist as long as a more ideal and practical form is found to replace it, or we could only expect our God to create a more ideal species instead of imperfect human beings.