1天搞定GRE作文4分模板
爲了幫助大家備考gre。瞭解更多關於gre的知識，打有準備的仗，下面小編給大家帶來1天搞定GRE作文4分模板，希望大家喜歡。
1天搞定GRE作文4分模板
GRE作文模板有好有壞，好處是可以幫助各位考生快速學會GRE寫作的架構，能夠達到臨時抱佛腳的效果，壞處則是容易雷同，寫不出自己的特色，容易導致大衆化。但是，在臨近考試的時候考生還是可以適當地進行參考的，要把握好一個度。下面看看過來人是怎樣在考試的前一天利用GRE作文模板來取得4分的成績的。
像我這種情況不多，從決定考G到考完回來還不到一個月的時間，而且，在國外和國內不一樣可以分開考試，作文和題目都是連在一起的，準備的時間倉促，一直到考試的前一天才準備作文，自己做了2個模版。
我覺得使用模版，不用擔心分數問題，託福作文能拿到5.0，那麼，就放心使用模版，一定能考出一個差不多的成績。
下面我具體說說怎麼臨時抱佛腳：
針對ISSUE,不用說太多，和託福的AGREE OR DISAGREE差不多，到時候隨便說說就可以弄到相當可觀的字數，而且，45分鐘，綽綽有餘。當然，如果想拿高分，就要在這個基礎上，積累一點詞彙和好的句子，其實也不難，多準備2天我覺得就可以了。
針對ARGU,這個開始我覺得很難，大家不要害怕，其實，這個比上一個要簡單很多，只要你熟悉了路子。ETS出題很有限，我建議大家不要盲目先寫，看看題目，自己想一想，然後找相對應的範文，在沒有時間的情況下，認真看10篇就可以了，最多用2個小時。
剩下的工作，就是練習模版，我考試之前用了3個小時練習，反覆敲，因爲我打字不快，所以要反覆練習，事實證明，這樣子比僅僅用腦子背的效果好，第一個我練習了10遍，第二個沒有時間了，就練習了5遍。我建議大家至少練習10遍，然後就可以信心十足去考試了。
總結一下，有關於作文，是一個長期提高的過程，臨時抱佛腳是很無奈的，不過，確實事半功倍，希望對大家短期準備或者長期準備的，都有幫助，大家也可以自己製作自己的模版，那樣子更加深刻。
補充一下，這位考生用模版取得的成績不高，4.0，保底分數!所以，天道小編奉勸大家，如果時間充裕的話一定要在平時認真練習，到最後了再用GRE作文模板進行模仿，狂練習幾天，要有自己的特色，不要雷同，否則可能影響GRE作文分數!
GRE寫作滿分範文1
"The media (books, film, music, Television, for example) tend to create rather than reflect the values of a society."
The media is important and there are commercials for business reasons and news and entertainment.
For media to become mainstream, it must appeal to many people. The values expressed must be attractive to the audience, otherwise it will not sell. Example of specific media - Televison:
Television rates each show by the number of viewers. Shows that do not have a large audience are usually cancelled and then they can allow time for a new show. Successful shows are duplicated. For example, Star Trek was successful so it is the creation of many new Star Trek shows (Deep Space Nine, Voyager). Veiwers decide which shows stay or leave. What makes a successful or unsuccessful show? Usually if the audience can identify with an actor, or situation, etc. the show will gain popularity. Special effects make shows more interesting; but, if the plot is not acceptable, the show is usually doomed.
Comments:
This response does not analyze the issue. Unlike many other essays at the 1 score level, this response is fairly easy to read and has, more or less, an overall coherence. The writer's position is that media have to "appeal to many people" in order "to become mainstream," and the brief discussion supports that position. This response was scored a 1 because it does not address the basic issue presented in the topic: do the media create or reflect the values of a society?
GRE寫作滿分範文2
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 author's argument is weak. Though he believes Scott Woods benefits the community as an undeveloped park, he also thinks a school should be built on it. Obviously the author is not aware of the development that comes with building a school besides the facilities devoted to learning or sports. He does not realize that parking lots will take up a substantial area of property, especially if the school proposed is a high school. We are not given this information, nor the size of the student body that will be attending, nor the population of the city itself, so it is unclear whether the damage will be great or marginal. For a better argument, the author should consider questions like what sort of natural resources are present on the land that will not remain once the school is built? Are there endangered species whose homes will be lost? And what about digging up the land for water lines? It is doubtful whether the integrity of Scott Woods as natural parkland can be maintained once the land has been developed. It is true that a school would probably not cause as much damage as a shopping center or housing development, but the author must consider whether the costs incurred in losing the park-like aspects of the property are worth developing it, when there could be another, more suitable site. He should also consider how the city will pay for the property, whether taxes will be raised to compensate for the expense or whether a shopping center will be built somewhere else to raise funds. He has not given any strong reasons for the idea of building a school, including what kind of land the property is, whether it is swampland that will have to be drained or an arid, scrubby lot that will need extensive maintenance to keep up the athletic greens. The author should also consider the opposition, such as the people without children who have no interest in more athletic fields. He must do a better job of presenting his case, addressing each point named above, for if the land is as much a popular community resource as he implies, he will face a tough time gaining allies to change a park to a school.
Comments:
After describing the argument as "weak," this strong response goes straight to the heart of the matter: building a school is not (as the argument seems to assume) innocuous; rather, it involves substantial development. The essay identifies several reasons to support this critique. The writer then points to the important questions that must be answered before accepting the proposal. These address
-- the costs versus the benefits of developing Scott Woods
-- the impact of development on Scott Woods
-- the possibility of "another, more suitable site"
The generally thoughtful analysis notes still more flaws in the argument:
-- whether the school is necessary
-- whether the selected site is appropriate
-- whether some groups might oppose the plan
Although detailed and comprehensive, the writer's critique is neither as fully developed nor as tightly organized as required for a 6 essay. The response exhibits good control of language, although there is some awkward phrasing (e.g., ".??爂aining allies to change a park to a school"). Overall, this essay warrants a score of 5 because it is well developed, clearly organized, and shows facility with language.
GRE寫作滿分範文3
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 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.
