新gre作文受到了很多學(xué)子的關(guān)注，那么你清楚gre寫(xiě)作教程嗎?如何拿到新gre作文5.5分呢?下面小編就和大家分享gre考試寫(xiě)作創(chuàng)作教程,希望能夠幫助到大家，來(lái)欣賞一下吧。

gre考試寫(xiě)作創(chuàng)作教程

絕密gre寫(xiě)作教程：

一、審題

一審文章的文體和格式，如書(shū)信有求職信、推薦信、回復(fù)信等，還有人物介紹、看圖說(shuō)明等等不同要求的寫(xiě)作題材，弄清文章的文體和格式是重要前提。GRE考試審題不清會(huì)導(dǎo)致格式不規(guī)范，作文要求不合格，甚至因?yàn)榕茴}偏題的錯(cuò)誤而失分。

二審文章內(nèi)容，先對(duì)題中的信息進(jìn)行篩選，哪些是有用信息，哪些是無(wú)用信息，然后把有用信息按一定順序分小點(diǎn)列出來(lái)。

二、遣詞造句

1. 根據(jù)審題步驟所列出的內(nèi)容要點(diǎn)，列出文章中可能要用到的關(guān)鍵詞語(yǔ)(如動(dòng)詞、短語(yǔ)等)

2. 列出文章中可能用到的句型

3. 列出文章中可能用到的語(yǔ)句間的連接詞

4. 按內(nèi)容要點(diǎn)順序和所列詞語(yǔ)、句型寫(xiě)出單句

三、構(gòu)思成文

這是新GRE寫(xiě)作的關(guān)鍵步驟。不能只是簡(jiǎn)單翻譯內(nèi)容要點(diǎn)，要作一些適當(dāng)發(fā)揮，使整篇文章既有“骨架”，又有“血肉”。同時(shí)應(yīng)注意以下幾點(diǎn)：

1. 注意全文的時(shí)態(tài)運(yùn)用，整篇文章的時(shí)態(tài)應(yīng)該保持一致性。

2. 注意短文的布局謀篇。恰當(dāng)?shù)亩温鋭澐郑昂笳Z(yǔ)句的連貫，句型的選擇，連接詞的運(yùn)用，使文章層次分明，語(yǔ)言暢通，連接恰當(dāng)，最終為文章增色出彩。

四、通讀檢查

這是完善新GRE作文任務(wù)的最后步驟。通讀文章的同時(shí)，檢查前后內(nèi)容是否連貫，語(yǔ)言是否暢通，段落劃分是否分明，句型及連接詞的運(yùn)用是否恰當(dāng)，時(shí)態(tài)運(yùn)用是否一致，標(biāo)點(diǎn)符號(hào)是否規(guī)范等等。完成了這些檢查并作出修改訂正，一定會(huì)使全文更加規(guī)范、更加自然流暢。

GRE寫(xiě)作高分范文：北美GRE寫(xiě)作滿分范文

The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper:

"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

GRE首段

This argument states that it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer because by making the workplace safer then lower wages could be paid to employees. This conclusion is based on the premise that as the list of physical injury increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. However, there are several assumptions that may not necessarily apply to this argument. For example, the costs associated with making the workplace safe must outweigh the increased payroll expenses due to hazardous conditions. Also, one must look at the plausability of improving the work environment. And finally, because most companies agree that as the risk of injury increases so will wages doesn't necessarily mean that the all companies which have hazardous work environments agree.

GRE中間段1

The first issue to be addressed is whether increased labor costs justify large capital expenditures to improve the work environment. Clearly one could argue that if making the workplace safe would cost an exorbitant amount of money in comparison to leaving the workplace as is and paying slightly increased wages than it would not make sense to improve the work environment. For example, if making the workplace safe would cost $100 million versus additional payroll expenses of only $5,000 per year, it would make financial sense to simply pay the increased wages. No business or business owner with any sense would pay all that extra money just to save a couple dollars and improve employee health and relations. To consider this, a cost benefit analysis must be made. I also feel that although a cost benefit analysis should be the determining factor with regard to these decisions making financial sense, it may not be the determining factor with regard to making social, moral and ethical sense.

GRE中間段2

This argument also relies on the idea that companies solely use financial sense in analysing improving the work environment. This is not the case. Companies look at other considerations such as the negative social ramifications of high on-job injuries. For example, Toyota spends large amounts of money improving its environment because while its goal is to be profitable, it also prides itself on high employee morale and an almost perfectly safe work environment. However, Toyota finds that it can do both, as by improving employee health and employee relations they are guaranteed a more motivated staff, and hence a more efficient staff; this guarantees more money for the business as well as more safety for the employees.

GRE中間段3

Finally one must understand that not all work environments can be made safer. For example, in the case of coal mining, a company only has limited ways of making the work environment safe. While companies may be able to ensure some safety precautions, they may not be able to provide all the safety measures necessary. In other words, a mining company has limited ability to control the air quality within a coal mine and therefore it cannot control the risk of employees getting blacklung. In other words, regardless of the intent of the company, some jobs are simply dangerous in nature.

GRE末端

In conclusion, while at first it may seem to make financial sense to improve the safety of the work environment sometimes it truly does not make financial sense. Furthermore, financial sense may not be the only issue a company faces. Other types of analyses must be made such as the social ramifications of an unsafe work environment and the overall ability of a company to improve that environment (i.e。， coal mine)。 Before any decision is made, all this things must be considered, not simply the reduction of payroll expenses.

GRE這篇官方欽定滿分的范文，其最明顯的優(yōu)點(diǎn)在于：

1. 字?jǐn)?shù)高達(dá)599words, GRE充分體現(xiàn)了字?jǐn)?shù)為王的判分傾向。

2. 標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的五段制，首段、GRE末端，中間三段，看上去很美。

3. 沒(méi)有陳詞濫調(diào)、GRE滿篇廢話的模板式語(yǔ)言。

只有以上三點(diǎn)離滿分還是很遠(yuǎn)的，GRE之所以SIX，我看更重要的在于，每段各盡其責(zé)，既獨(dú)立又統(tǒng)一，形成了完整的ARGUMENT，specifically:

1. 首段再現(xiàn)了原TOPIC的推理過(guò)程，GRE并指出其assumptions多有不適;尤其令閱卷人高興的是：首段在最后簡(jiǎn)化羅列了推理中的三個(gè)問(wèn)題。要知道美國(guó)人就喜歡的作文---總分式，在首段就把三個(gè)ideas羅列出來(lái)，然后在中間三段分別展開(kāi)，先總后分，一目了然。

2. 中一的TS -- “The first issue to be addressed is whether increased labor costs justify large capital expenditures to improve the work environment.”可謂是一針見(jiàn)血，一劍封喉。對(duì)于這樣嚴(yán)重的推理漏洞，如果不首先指出，其argument必然軟弱乏力。此所謂Topic中的 “必削點(diǎn)”，不可不察。

3. 中二的TS – “This argument also relies on the idea that companies solely use financial sense in analysing improving the work environment.”這可謂是劍走偏鋒，獨(dú)辟蹊徑，出人所料。文章竟然批評(píng)了Topic以錢為本經(jīng)營(yíng)理念，提出了要以人為本，這樣寫(xiě)是有一定風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，畢竟這不是Issue。那本文是如何化險(xiǎn)為夷的呢?且看本段最后一句“this guarantees more money for the business as well as more safety for the employees.”我不由得長(zhǎng)舒一口，人家再次回歸了，又回到了Topic中以“Money”為本的推理。

4. 中三的TS – “Finally one must understand that not all work environments can be made safer.”這充分體現(xiàn)了作者不只是坐而論道的arguer，而是關(guān)心其可行性的現(xiàn)實(shí)主義者，考慮到方案本身的可行性和局限性。

5. 末端不但對(duì)首段提出的論點(diǎn)做出了重復(fù)性的總結(jié)，GRE而且又不厭其煩地把中間三段的ideas一一羅列。如此“啰嗦”估計(jì)令某些同學(xué)略有不齒，但這恰恰是美國(guó)人的最愛(ài)，cultural shock了吧?

本文最令我欣賞的地方，GRE就是對(duì)EXAMPLES的運(yùn)用

1. 中間段一，運(yùn)用了“設(shè)例”GRE(假設(shè)的情況)，$100 million啦、$5,000了，很幼稚是吧?可美國(guó)人喜歡啊;咱中國(guó)的學(xué)生，尤其是理工科的，喜歡用一些相當(dāng)高深的例子，有沒(méi)有想過(guò)那些閱卷老師能看懂嗎?尤其是在極短時(shí)間內(nèi)，他們IQ又不高，知識(shí)又不多，聯(lián)想又不豐富……

2. 中間段二，運(yùn)用了“具例”GRE(具體的例子)，舉一個(gè)婦孺皆知的Toyota例子把想說(shuō)明的問(wèn)題統(tǒng)統(tǒng)道出，再次體現(xiàn)出美國(guó)人喜歡淺顯易懂的事例。

3. 中間段三，運(yùn)用了“泛例”GRE(某一類人、團(tuán)體或組織)，通過(guò)采煤行業(yè)指出了計(jì)劃可行性的所受到的制約，一個(gè)多么質(zhì)樸無(wú)華的泛例，充分地考慮到了閱卷老師的理解能力。

以上這一切怎能不讓美國(guó)閱卷者頻頻頷首，GRE嘖嘖稱善呢?他或她手中的筆在紙上劃出了一條美麗的弧線 —— 6

相反，有些中國(guó)學(xué)生，憑借自己繁密的邏輯、GRE淵深的例子和云霧繚繞的行文，每每令那些閱卷者咬唇咂舌，shrug連連，又怎能獲得一個(gè)理想的分?jǐn)?shù)呢?你挑戰(zhàn)了他的智商，他必然報(bào)復(fù)你的分?jǐn)?shù)。

GRE寫(xiě)作高分范文：審查的公正性

Censorship is rarely, if ever, justified.

審查很少能夠做到公正。

GRE寫(xiě)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.