gre考試中寫作也許是很多同學(xué)最后一個(gè)準(zhǔn)備科目，那么如果時(shí)間不足該如何白考gre考試寫作呢?下面小編就和大家分享 gre考試備考時(shí)間不夠該如何給寫作“減負(fù)”，希望能夠幫助到大家，來欣賞一下吧。
gre考試備考時(shí)間不夠該如何給寫作“減負(fù)”?
一共有多少題目
gre寫作有一個(gè)特色，也是我們應(yīng)該利用的特點(diǎn)：它的題庫是完全公開的。我們最終在考場上遇到的題目會(huì)直接從題庫中抽取而出，不會(huì)做任何改變。所以，理論上講，只要我們提前準(zhǔn)備好所有題目，GRE寫作的高分是絕對能保障的，這一點(diǎn)和GRE的語文和數(shù)學(xué)都不一樣。
看完題庫之后，大家應(yīng)該心灰意冷了。不用數(shù)了，Issue部分題目：152道。Argument題目：177道。這樣的“天文數(shù)字”，似乎讓我們無從下手，但是……
真的有這么多道題目嗎
不是的!細(xì)心的同學(xué)應(yīng)該會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，不論是Issue還是Argument，有很多題目的題干是高度相似甚至是完全一樣的，重復(fù)率幾乎為50%。這樣一來，Issue部分我們需要準(zhǔn)備的題目數(shù)量就變成了：152/2=76，Argument部分我們需要準(zhǔn)備的題目數(shù)量就變成了：177/2≈89。題庫直接縮小了一半。
但即便如此，gre考試題目數(shù)量還是很多，有沒有辦法再縮減一些呢?
要減負(fù)，就減負(fù)得狠一些
gre考生們自己在準(zhǔn)備時(shí)，容易陷入一個(gè)對題目的錯(cuò)誤分類方式(或說是不高效的分類方式)：Issue按照“領(lǐng)域(即藝術(shù)、政治、科技、教育等)”分類，Argument按照“經(jīng)典邏輯錯(cuò)誤(臆造因果，錯(cuò)誤類比等)”分類。這樣的分類方式適用于老GRE，如果考生依然按照這樣的分類方式，很有可能就會(huì)陷入誤區(qū)。
那么，新GRE的題目分類方式應(yīng)該是按照什么呢?
一個(gè)詞，Instruction。
Instruction又叫Direction，中文意思是“具體性指令”或“寫作要求”。
題目下面這段斜體字就是Instruction。之前有同學(xué)跟我們反映說：“曾經(jīng)以為每道題目下面的這個(gè)斜體字都是一樣的，所以根本不看”……
不看Instruction的后果很慘重，ETS明確說，如果不按照Instruction，最高分不會(huì)超過三分。
而Issue當(dāng)中一共有6種Instruction，Argument當(dāng)中一共有4種Instruction，每一種對我們行文都有不同的要求。如此看來，在面對新GRE時(shí)，我們應(yīng)該按照Instruction來對題目進(jìn)行分類。
這樣一來，我們需要準(zhǔn)備的題目的類別數(shù)量即為：Issue6道，Argument4道。加在一起是10道題目，是原來總題目數(shù)量的3%。這個(gè)減負(fù)力度，夠狠了吧。
如果只有一周了，練幾篇
這個(gè)問題也真是把我們逼上了絕路。但還剩一周才來看作文的同學(xué)其實(shí)也不在少數(shù)。在這樣的時(shí)間節(jié)點(diǎn)上，因?yàn)锳rgument的套路性更強(qiáng)，模板也更好用，因此更好拿分，我們會(huì)告訴大家：“保Argument，爭Issue”。即把重點(diǎn)放在Argument上面，而Issue部分只需要明白寫作要點(diǎn)，實(shí)在沒有時(shí)間就可以不做全文練習(xí)了。這樣一來，我們面對GRE寫作，最少應(yīng)該練——4篇。
GRE寫作高分范文：競爭利弊問題
題目：
"Competition is ultimately more beneficial than detrimental to society."
歸根結(jié)底，競爭對于社會(huì)是利多弊少。
正文：
Darwin suggested that the process of evolution is one based on competition. This deadly competition weeds out the weak and only the fittest of the species survives. Humans, being the product of millions of years of evolution, are by nature, competitive beings. Yet, humans are also social beings. Like the bees in the hive, we are not very successful living completely on our own. We need to cooperate with other individuals for our survival. Thus, a conflict ensues, between our innate competitiveness, and our need to cooperate. There are pros and cons associated with both. However, it is my belief that overall, competition, is more detrimental than beneficial to human society.
First, let us try to identify why there is competition in the first place. In an environment abundant with resources, where supply outstrips demand, there is very little need for the inhabitants to fight with each other over them. This is not the case on planet earth. Resources are limited, and there is constant jostling to get to the front of the queue to get acquire them. For example, thousands of prospective students apply to gain entrance to top universities around the world, but there are only a handful of places in those
universities. Thus, there is competition to get into to these hallowed institutions of higher learning.From a utilitarian perspective, competition is a good thing. In evolution it is responsible for the elimination of "weak" genes. In the business environment, it gets rid of the weaker players. In politics, it weeds out unpopular candidates. In academia, it gets rid of weak students.
Furthermore, competition leads to self improvement. Businesses will strive to offer better products and services at lesser prices. The consumer reaps rich rewards from this competitive spirit. Politicians strive to do the utmost for the people, so they would get reelected. Students excel in there studies, trying to outdo each other.
Thus, ostensibly, competition is responsible for the betterment of the society as a whole. However, this is just the superficial view. Underneath the surface, competition, in every aspect, is slowly eating away at the very fabric of the society.
While it is true to say that competition in corporate world has brought great benefits to the consumer, the society as "Missed A here"whole is playing a great price for it. Most businesses are exploiting cheap labour in the third world to maximise their profits. There are thousands of sweatshops run by well known western corporations in countries like Indonesia, Bangladesh and China. People are forced to work in squalid conditions, often 16 hours a day. They are lucky to receive a dollar a day for there labours. The moment a government in any of these countries try to improve the working conditions of the employees, these multinational giants flee the country, often leaving whole communities facing financial ruin. The corporations are aware that there are plenty of other labour markets that could be exploited with gay abandon.
That is just the human cost. What about the environmental costs? Competition has forced many corporations to "stream line" their operations. Environmental standards are normally the first victims of this "stream line" process. A significant amount of environmental pollution and land degradation has been blamed on industry, yet the factories keep producing more and more. Thousands of items go unsold each year due to competition. Only a fraction of this merchandise is recycled. The rest goes to the already overflowing landfills.
GRE寫作高分范文：information
GRE寫作題目：
Much of the information that people assume is factualactually turns out to be inaccurate. Thus，any piece of information referred to as a‘fact’should be mistrusted since it may well be proven false in the future.
大多數(shù)人們認(rèn)為是事實(shí)的信息結(jié)果實(shí)際上都是不準(zhǔn)確的。因此，任何據(jù)稱是事實(shí)的信息都應(yīng)該被質(zhì)疑，因?yàn)樗趯砗芸赡軙?huì)被證明為是錯(cuò)誤的。
GRE寫作范文：
Should we be doubtful to all the information at hands because the rightness of which is uncertain? The speaker claims so，I concede that people often commit various fallacies in the course of cognizing things，however I fundamentally take exception of the arguer's assertion to mistrust every fact we might encounter. And I will substantially discuss my views thereinafter.
To begin with，the speaker seems to implicate that a fact would be proven false in the future under numerous circumstance. Nevertheless I prefer to arguer that facts never change. No matter how did the Medieval Church and Inquisition persecute Bruno，the fact never changes that the earth is far from being the center of the universe as the religious sovereigns had assumed or hoped for，while just a minor particle in it. Equally，no matter how Edison had tried to incite the public fear and distrust to the alternative current electricity，the fact never changes that Teals’ electrical system is vastly superior to his direct current electrical one，and would be accepted and applied in larger range.
However，what do change are the human's objective interpretations to facts. One compelling argument to this point is that，due to the limitation of human’s knowledge and comprehensive capability，they tend to make insufficient or even false understanding to the certain fact. An apt illustration is the changes of cognition to disease. While at the ancient time，our progenitors believed the a man becoming a patient for the reason that he had conduct crimes or offended some ghosts or spirits，the contemporary people have well know that the varies of pathogens are the basic causes to our diseases，and the defects of our immune system and so forth are also the factors as well. Another argument for the change of comprehension to fact is that different people always observe and interpret from different perspectives. Though the Relativity theory is not well compliable with the Quantum mechanism，no one call the greatness of both Einstein and Bohr，because their theories are based on distinct views，the former from the macrocosm and the later from the microcosm.
Notwithstanding the foregoing reasons for that human tend to make fallacies during the cause of comprehending and cognizing facts，these reasons should never be the excuses to doubt every conclusion we might draw from facts. Based on certain rational inference and proper knowledge fundament，the conclusions we make might well be justifiable，if not completely right，to certain degree. What we need to do is to promote the enterprise of pursuing the better answer and try to use the result we have get to application，instead of wasting our time to undue doubt and suspicion. Though the medical scientists have not fully understood the mechanism of how the does the implanted organ interact with the wounded body，they are not refrain from using the implanting skill to save patients，of course the precondition or which is that this technology is much well established than the fundamental theory.
To sum up，while I advocate the speaker's opinion that it is inevitable for human to comprehend facts inaccurately，for the reason of the limitation of the abilities，I essentially disagree with his assertion that facts will continually alter themselves，as well as his recommendation to discredit any piece of fact. In the final analysis，I would arguer once more that facts never change and although the misunderstanding to them is inevitable，we should not defer ourselves from the pursuit to fully comprehending them.
