1天搞定GRE作文4分模板
为了帮助大家备考gre。了解更多关于gre的知识，打有准备的仗，下面小编给大家带来1天搞定GRE作文4分模板，希望大家喜欢。
1天搞定GRE作文4分模板
GRE作文模板有好有坏，好处是可以帮助各位考生快速学会GRE写作的架构，能够达到临时抱佛脚的效果，坏处则是容易雷同，写不出自己的特色，容易导致大众化。但是，在临近考试的时候考生还是可以适当地进行参考的，要把握好一个度。下面看看过来人是怎样在考试的前一天利用GRE作文模板来取得4分的成绩的。
像我这种情况不多，从决定考G到考完回来还不到一个月的时间，而且，在国外和国内不一样可以分开考试，作文和题目都是连在一起的，准备的时间仓促，一直到考试的前一天才准备作文，自己做了2个模版。
我觉得使用模版，不用担心分数问题，托福作文能拿到5.0，那么，就放心使用模版，一定能考出一个差不多的成绩。
下面我具体说说怎么临时抱佛脚：
针对ISSUE,不用说太多，和托福的AGREE OR DISAGREE差不多，到时候随便说说就可以弄到相当可观的字数，而且，45分钟，绰绰有余。当然，如果想拿高分，就要在这个基础上，积累一点词汇和好的句子，其实也不难，多准备2天我觉得就可以了。
针对ARGU,这个开始我觉得很难，大家不要害怕，其实，这个比上一个要简单很多，只要你熟悉了路子。ETS出题很有限，我建议大家不要盲目先写，看看题目，自己想一想，然后找相对应的范文，在没有时间的情况下，认真看10篇就可以了，最多用2个小时。
剩下的工作，就是练习模版，我考试之前用了3个小时练习，反复敲，因为我打字不快，所以要反复练习，事实证明，这样子比仅仅用脑子背的效果好，第一个我练习了10遍，第二个没有时间了，就练习了5遍。我建议大家至少练习10遍，然后就可以信心十足去考试了。
总结一下，有关于作文，是一个长期提高的过程，临时抱佛脚是很无奈的，不过，确实事半功倍，希望对大家短期准备或者长期准备的，都有帮助，大家也可以自己制作自己的模版，那样子更加深刻。
补充一下，这位考生用模版取得的成绩不高，4.0，保底分数!所以，天道小编奉劝大家，如果时间充裕的话一定要在平时认真练习，到最后了再用GRE作文模板进行模仿，狂练习几天，要有自己的特色，不要雷同，否则可能影响GRE作文分数!
GRE写作满分范文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写作满分范文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写作满分范文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.
1天搞定GRE作文4分模板相关文章：
