如何正確對待GRE寫作模板?今天小編給大家?guī)鞧RE寫作之正確對待的模板，希望能夠幫助到大家，下面小編就和大家分享，來欣賞一下吧。

GRE寫作：正確對待的模板

(1)早點整理出自己的模板，什么是模板，應(yīng)該怎么準(zhǔn)備，會在下面的部分為G親們說明，所以不用著急。

(2)考試的時候順序把握好，先讀題，形成思路和粗略提綱敲首段，中間每段的主旨句和過渡段，最后敲尾段，根據(jù)時間，有層次地補充豐滿每段的內(nèi)容檢查拼寫語法錯誤，平時練習(xí)的時候就是不斷地重復(fù)這樣的順序，做到非常熟悉。

(3)狂寫，練打字速度，尤其是練自己的模板、固定段落、常用事例的打字速度。當(dāng)初用Issue部分的時間就可以把Issue和Argu全部寫完，Issue上600，Argu上550;平時正常寫的話，Issue可以上700，Argu上600，靠的就是固定段落、事例還有模板的打字特別快，基本上Issue模板250字在幾分鐘之內(nèi)就搞定了，Argu的模板就更夸張了，總共才500多字，模板就有一大半，而且基本上幾分鐘之內(nèi)就可以完全打完。

在備考新GRE作文的過程中，其實是否準(zhǔn)備網(wǎng)絡(luò)流傳的“高頻”題目并不重要，而重要的是，無論準(zhǔn)備什么題目，都能有正確的思考路徑和分析方法，并且能夠用正確的語言來表達(dá)自己的想法。

GRE寫作滿分范文賞析

The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

"Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."

The argument about Scott Woods being undeveloped land seem to be a well thought out. The community has thought long and hard about what they wanted to do with the land. They do not want any homes or shopping malls on the land because it would not benefit the community as a natural parkland. By building the school on the vacant land is not benfiting the community as natural parkland either. There would be the same type of construction and traffic. That is very contradictory in itself. I think that the community would have to meet again and decide exactly was is best for this particular community and the children in the community. The presentation sounded so close and shut about what was going to be done about the land that it seemed usless for anybody to try to purchase it and do anything with the land. So if the Morganton community want something such as a school being built on the land that should have been what they voted on in the first place. They look very indecisive and even controlling. These are not very good ways to accomplish or do business.

Comments:

The opening sentences of this limited response seem to agree with the argument, describing it as "well thought out." However, the writer begins to construct a critique in the fourth sentence, identifying and briefly describing one flawed assumption: if the community members want to retain natural parkland, they will not be able to do so by building a school on that land.

This is the only analysis in the response, marking it as "plainly flawed." The remaining five sentences fail to develop or add to this critique. Some are tangential ("I think that the community would have to meet again???") and others are irrelevant ("They look very indecisive and even controlling").

The writing demonstrates limited language control. There are missing words, syntax errors, and several grammatical errors. For these reasons, the essay earns the score of 3.

GRE寫作滿分范文賞析

The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

"Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."

The argument that the writer is trying to make contains several flaws. First of all, the writer needs to be clear on whether or not he or she wishes to keep Scott Woods in a "natural, undeveloped state." To be natural and undeveloped suggest that Scott Woods is free from anything man-made. It has not been infected with man-made buildings of any kind. The author suggests that the building of a school in Scoot Woods would preserve Morganton's "natural parkland" by preventing the construction of shopping centers and houses. Yet, the building of a school would prevent Morganton from preserving this natural parkland just as shopping centers and houses. While the school may provide substantial acreage for athletic fields, it would be still contributing to pollution, the loss of vegetation and overall disruption to the natural ecosystem of Scott Woods. Consequently, the area would not be a "natural parkland" as the author suggests.

Furthermore, the author appeals to the sensitivity of the readers through his discussion on the children's participation in sports. He falsely states that the the children's use of the athletic fields that the school would provide is the best way to utilize this natural parkland. Again, the author mistakingly feels that athletic fields constitute a natural parkland. Since the author continuously misuses the word "natural parkland," the validity of the letter is weakened.

Comments:

After acknowledging that the argument "contains several flaws," this adequate response identifies a basic problem in the reasoning -- the letter writer's ambivalence about the desirability of maintaining Scott Woods as natural and undeveloped parkland. The writer recognizes that the argument's confused intentions are indirectly related to a root flaw in the argument: the assumption that construction of new buildings -- even school buildings -- would not impact the preservation of the parkland. Further, the writer does a competent job of explaining how both of these problems are the result of a lack of clarity about what constitutes a "natural parkland."

Paragraph 2 identifies an additional weakness in the argument; the writer refuses to be taken in by the emotional appeal of a proposal that promises to benefit children. However, this critique is stated in a confusing way (".??燼ppeals to the sensitivity of the readers through his discussion on the children's participation in sports") and is not sufficiently developed.

The writer generally demonstrates adequate control of diction, syntax, grammar, and usage. Ideas are conveyed clearly, if mechanically. Some sentences, though, are awkwardly worded (e.g., ".??爌reserving this natural parkland just as shopping centers and houses"). In sum, both the unevenly developed critique of the argument and the level of control of language warrant a score of 4.