GRE写作高分经验分享.doc

GRE写作高分经验分享 GRE写作高分经验分享 立论驳论文提分心得不可不看，快来看看吧,下面就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。GRE写作高分经验分享 立论驳论文提分心得不可不看以下就是我自己总结一点小技巧：首先，我在准备GRE写作备考时，最重要的一个步骤在于熟悉题库和认真准备提纲。GRE立论文issue经验分享对于立论文(Issue)说，我觉得自己动手拟一份提纲是非常有用的，你可以参考各种资料，但必须勤动脑，想一想提纲的逻辑连续性。实际上，有偏向性、但又不要绝对化的思路才是最易上手的。GRE驳论文argument怎么练?对于驳论文(Argument)而言，我认为熟悉题库更为重要。正常情况下是这样的，但的确有些难题若不事先好好准备，五分钟之内能找出两个错误就不错了。在第一次考试时，我正是因为在准备时放掉了一道我只找出两个错误的题目，而在正式考试时恰恰碰到了这道题目，所以写得很不好。写驳论文有很多小窍门，如需要锻炼出区别“事实”和“观点”的能力，不论题目中所给的事实有多夸张都需认为它是对的，不能攻击，只能攻击观点中的逻辑漏洞;凡是跟统计数字、统计方法有关的逻辑错误都尽量不要攻击，最多只能一笔带过等等。GRE作文逻辑重要吗?虽然逻辑作文满分只有6分，可千万别小看了它的重要性。从某种程度上来说，它是GRE的精华因为GRE考的就是逻辑，用英语写两篇作文只是形式而已，主要目的就是考察你的逻辑分析水平。怎样看待GRE作文中的语言水平?至于GRE作文的语言，其实不是很重要，只要通顺、没有语法错误就可以了，掌握了这些就可以更好地备考GRE作文。希望可以给大家一些参考，从而更好地备考GRE阅读考试。新GRE写作：审查的公正性题目：Censorship is rarely, if ever, justified.审查很少能够做到公正。范文：“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 to arouse 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 Chatterleys 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 dont 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.新GRE写作：权威问题题目：Much of the information that people assume is factual actually 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.大多数人们认为是事实的信息结果实际上都是不准确的。因此，任何据称是事实的信息都应该被质疑，因为它在将来很可能会被证明为是错误的。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 arguers 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 argue 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 humans objective interpretations to facts. One compelling argument to this point is that, due to the limitation of humans 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 speakers 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 argue 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.GRE写作高分经验分享