GRE写作体现驳论水准写法精析

由 androidx86.net 分享时间：2023-02-15 15:45:11 加入收藏我要投稿点赞

GRE写作的ARGUMENT在大家看来似乎难度要比ISSUE更低一些。毕竟有现成的材料，考生只需要从里面挑出逻辑漏洞就行。今天小编给大家带来了GRE写作体现驳论水准写法精析 ,希望能够帮助到大家，一起来学习吧。

GRE写作体现驳论水准写法精析

GRE写作正文篇幅要求介绍

GRE作文的字数篇幅一直都是考生比较关注的问题。大家既担心写得太少被扣分，又害怕要写太多内容时间不够用。实际上这些担心都是没有必要的。GRE考试官方ETS没有在评分标准中对作文的字数给出明确的要求和限制，考生只需要保证文章完整性以及内容的充实度即可。按照官方给出的几篇范文来看，GRE写作ARGUMENT正文段一般以2-3段为主，也就是2-3个逻辑漏洞，大家可以按照漏洞的严重性从大到小排列的顺序来进行展开，也可以结合一些让步写法进行正文段落之间的逻辑连接。总而言之，考生要保证把每个逻辑漏洞都写清楚，论述内容要有实质性的干货。只要能做到这一点就足够了，篇幅方面无需太过担心。

GRE写作正文段3步写法讲解

下面小编就来具体讲解一下GRE写作ARGUMENT正文每个段落的3步写法：

1. 陈述逻辑漏洞

ARGUMENT正文段落写法的第一步就是陈述漏洞，也就是说明题目给出的素材到底哪里存在逻辑问题。考生需要注意两点。首先不能直接照搬原文，涉及都漏洞的内容最好用自己的话加工改写一下再写出来，避免可能遭遇的抄袭雷同判定。其次是陈述漏洞需要简单明了，陈述中不能绕圈子或者讲不到重点废话连篇。一般来说，引用原文加上陈述漏洞的部分需要控制在1-2句话内完成。

2. 反驳逻辑漏洞

在陈述了逻辑漏洞之后，接下来考生就需要对这个漏洞进行反驳。反驳的方法有很多，考生可以通过讲道理来指出为什么这个逻辑有问题站不住脚，也可以直接举出反例来进行驳论。很多考生觉得驳论就是要用例子来打脸，这种看法不能说错误，但至少是不完整的。如果考生能够只靠讲道理就把问题说清楚逻辑讲通顺，那么即使不提出例证素材也是完全可行的。但如果大家觉得自己的论述缺乏说服力没有可信度，那么还是尽量加入一些实证为好。

3. 给出应对方法

可能许多考生觉得ARGUMENT正文中反驳完漏洞就算写完了，其实这样的论述并不完整。考生在反驳完漏洞以后，其实还需要做一件事，那就是给出一定的应对和解决漏洞的方法。当然，这个给出应对方法的部分不需要写很多，考生只需要一句话带过就足够了。

ARGUMENT正文段落之间的衔接方式

另外，考生除了要写好每一个正文段落外，段落之间也需要注意一下衔接。现在比较多的ARGUMENT正文段，考生都会用FIRST, SECOND这样直接数数的方式来开头，这种承上启下的方式其实是比较生硬的。如前文提到过的让步式写法就要更加自然顺畅一些，考生第一个正文段先指出某个逻辑漏洞并完成反驳攻击后，开始第二个正文段时可以用“即使第一个漏洞能够解决，但还有下面这个漏洞”这样的方式，也就是通过让步承认第一个漏洞来衔接之后的段落。这样的写法能够让文章的各个正文段更好地融合在一起，形成一个更为完整的文章论述结构。

GRE写作高分范文：批判性思维

GRE写作范文：

Too much time, money, and energy are spent developing new and more elaborate technology. Society should instead focus on maximizing the use of existing technology for the immediate benefit of its citizens.

I must say that I reject this statement. While it is true that we need to support society as much as possible with current technology, that does not in any way mean that we should stop progressing simply because our current technology cannot handle all the problems we have brought to it. Does that mean that we should simply accept the status quo and make do? No, I don’t think so. To do so would be tantamount to adopting a fatalistic approach; I think most people would reject that.

Technology has helped, and it has hurt. Without it, we would never have our standard of living, nor quality of nutrition, expectation of a long and productive life span, and the unshakable belief that our lives can be made even better. But it has also brought us universal pollution, weapons so powerful as to be capable of rendering us extinct, and the consequent fear for our survival as species and as a planet. Technology is indeed a double-edged sword. And yet, I still have to argue in its favor, because without it, we have no hope.

Some might argue that we would be better off without technology. They might say that a return to a less technologically driven approach to life would have the benefits of reducing stress and allowing us to live simpler, happier lives, like those of our forebears. Such an idea is seductive, so much so that much of art and all of nostalgia are devoted to it. But upon closer inspection, one realizes that such a move would only return us to a life of different kinds of stress, one of false simplicity, one fraught with danger. It would be a life

without antibiotics where a minor cut could prove deadly. It would be a life where childbirth is the main killer of women, and where an emergency is dealt with in terms of hours and days instead of minutes and hours; a life where there are no phones or cars or planes or central heating, no proven drug therapies to treat mental illness, no computers. Would this world really make people happy?

What we already have, we have. And since the only way to move is forward, instead of allowing ourselves to be paralyzed by fear and worry, we need to learn how to clean up the pollution we have caused, and how to deal with a world that feeds on weapons and mass destruction. Doing these things means having to move away from technology into a more difficult realm, that of diplomacy and compromise: to move from the bully stance of “I am bigger and better and I have more toys and so I win” to a place where everyone wins.

Technology is the thing that will allow people to do that. But, advanced as it is, it is still in its infancy. We have to allow it to grow up and mature in order to reap the real rewards that it can bring. And there are even greater rewards ahead of us than what the world has already experienced. When technology is pushed to the outer edge, that is where serendipitous discoveries can occur. This has been seen throughout technological advancement, but the easiest example is probably the space program which made us think, really hard, about how to do things in a different environment. It gave us telecommunications, new fabrics and international cooperation. Paramedical devices, so that people can be treated even as they are being transported to the hosptal, are a direct development of that technology. None of this would have happened in the time frame that it did if we had not pushed for technological advancement. If we had decided to

第二段：

(概述科技的两面性)Technology has helped, and it has hurt. (具体讨论科技的贡献)Without it, we would never have our standard of living, nor quality of nutrition, expectation of a long and productive life span, and the unshakable belief that our lives can be made even better. (具体讨论科技的危害)But it has also brought us universal pollution, weapons so powerful as to be capable of rendering us extinct, and the consequent fear for our survival as species and as a planet. Technology is indeed a double-edged sword. (表明已考虑到科技的危害，但是依然坚持自己立场)And yet, I still have to argue in its favor, because without it, we have no hope.

第三段：

(提出反方的立场)Some might argue that we would be better off without technology. They might say that a return to a less technologically driven approach to life would have the benefits of reducing stress and allowing us to live simpler, happier lives, like those of our forebears. Such an idea is seductive, so much so that much of art and all of nostalgia are devoted to it. (通过具体论据反驳反方的观点)But upon closer inspection, one realizes that such a move would only return us to a life of different kinds of stress, one of false simplicity, one fraught with danger. It would be a life without antibiotics where a minor cut could prove deadly. It would be a life where childbirth is the main killer of women, and where an emergency is dealt with in terms of hours and days instead of minutes and hours; a life where there are no phones or cars or planes or central heating, no proven drug therapies to treat mental illness, no computers. Would this world really make people happy?

第四段：

(在第三段驳论的基础上进一步立论)What we already have, we have. And since the only way to move is forward, instead of allowing ourselves to be paralyzed by fear and worry, we need to learn how to clean up the pollution we have caused, and how to deal with a world that feeds on weapons and mass destruction. Doing these things means having to move away from technology into a more difficult realm, that of diplomacy and compromise: to move from the bully stance of “I am bigger and better and I have more toys and so I win” to a place where everyone wins.

第五段：

Technology is the thing that will allow people to do that. (指出支持观点存在的一点不足)But, advanced as it is, it is still in its infancy. (解决方案)We have to allow it to grow up and mature in order to reap the real rewards that it can bring. And there are even greater rewards ahead of us than what the world has already experienced. When technology is pushed to the outer edge, that is where serendipitous discoveries can occur. This has been seen throughout technological advancement, but the easiest example is probably the space program which made us think, really hard, about how to do things in a different environment. It gave us telecommunications, new fabrics and international cooperation. Paramedical devices, so that people can be treated even as they are being transported to the hospital, are a direct development of that technology. None of this would have happened in the time frame that it did if we had not pushed for technological advancement. If we had decided to “focus on maximizing the use of existing technology” instead of foolishly reaching for the stars, we would not have made those discoveries which now are the bedrock of the 21st century.

gre满分作文重点：Critical Thinking.当然，提高critical thinking能力的同时，也很有必要包装语言。

GRE写作：短期内怎样提高

Argument句型

开头

In this analysis, the arguer claims that …should …To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the example of …where …In addition, the arguer assumes that …This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

正文：

For instance …since …what’s more …etc.

and how well it represented the public opinions..

The sample of the survey is not representative.

(样本太小)

the sample is too small to...

(光数字没比例)

the ratio of four to six

there is only figures but no proportion of the survey 还是ratio?

Insufficient Sample

If the [respondents] only stand for a tiny proportion of the whole [group], we should not be so sure about the conclusion that [the whole group…]

The arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization.

It was only carried out in Sun City, but the arguer applies its result to all the company’s markets while doesn’t show us whether Sun City is a representative market of the whole markets.

有的病人会对抗生素过敏

the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if the maintenance of the airline has been improved as a result of sending its mechanics to the Seminar, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that就算怎样，也不怎样

The survey is based on two isolated examples. The arguer should survey more hospitals of both types.

循环假设

The arguer commits a fallacy of begging the question in assuming that …

结尾：

other possible causes of the …

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands.

GRE写作相关文章：

★ GRE写作:高分技巧

★ GRE写作:高分冲刺

★ GRE写作:怎样准备提纲

★ GRE写作:写作论据的技巧

★ GRE背单词记不住怎么办