gre作文范文

gre作文范文

【篇一：ets官网给出的5分gre作文范文赏析】

ets官网给出的5分gre作文范文赏析

以下是ets官网给出的gre作文5分范文。 as people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. in developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

essay response — score 5

surely many of us have expressed the following sentiment, or some variation on it, during our daily commutes to work: people are getting so stupid these days! surrounded as we are by striding and strident automatons with cell phones glued to their ears, pdas gripped in their palms, and omniscient, omnipresent cnn gleaming in their eyeballs, its tempting to believe that technology has isolated and infantilized us, essentally transforming us into dependent, conformist morons best equipped to sideswip one another in our suvs.

furthermore, hanging around with the younger, pre-commute generation, whom tech-savviness seems to have rendered lethal, is even less reassuring. with teen people style trends shooting through the air from tiger-striped pda to

zebra-striped pda, and with the latest starlet gossip zipping from juicy blackberry to teeny, turbo-charged cell phone, technology seems to support young peoples worst tendencies to follow the crowd. indeed, they have seemingly evolved into intergalactic conformity police. after all, todays tech-aided teens are, courtesy of authentic, hands-on video games, literally trained to kill; courtesy of chat and instant text messaging, they have their own language; they even have tiny cameras

to efficiently photodocument your fashion blunders! is this adolescence, or paparazzi terrorist training camp?

with all this evidence, its easy to believe that tech trends and the

incorporation of technological wizardry into our everyday

lives have served mostly to enforce conformity, promote dependence, heighten comsumerism and materialism, and generally create a culture that values self-absorption and personal entitlement over cooperation and collaboration. however, i argue that we are merely in the inchoate stages of learning to live with technology while still loving one another. after all, even given the examples provided earlier in this essay, it seems clear that technology hasnt impaired our thinking and problem-solving capacities. certainly it has incapacitated our behavior and manners; certainly our values have taken a severe blow. however, we are inarguably more efficient in our badness these days. were effective worker bees of ineffectiveness!

if t\technology has so increased our senses of self-efficacy that we can become veritable agents of the awful, virtual ceos of selfishness, certainly it can be beneficial. harnessed correctly, technology can improve our ability to think and act for ourselves. the first challenge is to figure out how to provide technology users with some direly-needed direction.

reader commentary for essay response — score 5

the language of this essay clearly illustrates both its strengths and weaknesses. the flowery and sometimes uncannily keen descriptions are often used to powerful effect, but at other times this descriptive language results in errors in syntax. see, for example, the problems of parallelism in the second-to-last sentence of paragraph 2 (after all, todays tech-aided teens ...).

there is consistent evidence of facility with syntax and complex vocabulary (surrounded as we are by striding and strident automatons with cell phones glued

to their ears, pdas gripped in their palms, and omniscient, omnipresent cnn gleaming in their eyeballs, its tempting to believe...). however, such lucid prose is often countered by an over-reliance on abstractions and tangential reasoning. for example, what does the fact that video games literally train [teens] to kill have to do with the use or deterioration of thinking abilities?

because this essay takes a complex approach to the issue (arguing, in effect, that technology neither enhances nor reduces our ability to think for ourselves, but can do one or the

other, depending on the user) and because the author makes use of appropriate vocabulary and sentence variety, a score of 5 is appropriate.

【篇二：gre-gre作文范例】

两分钟做个小测试，看看你的英语水平

美联英语提供：gre范文

issue the following is from an editorial in the midvale observer, a local newspaper. ever since the 1950s, when television sets began to appear in the average home, the rate

of crimes committed by teenagers in the country of alta has steadily increased. this increase in teenage crime parallels the increase in violence shown on television. according to several national studies, even very young children who watch a great number of television shows featuring violent scenes display more violent behavior within their home environment than do children who do not watch violent shows. furthermore, in a survey conducted by the observer, over 90 percent of the respondents were parents who indicated that prime-time television——programs that are shown between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m.——should show less violence. therefore, in order to lower the rate of teenage crime in alta, television viewers should demand that television programmers reduce the amount of violence shown during prime time. the author of this editorial states that the rate of teenage

crime in the country of alta has increased along with the increase in violence shown on television, beginning with the 1950s when television was introduced in the average home. in addition, the author states that several national surveys have shown that young children watching violent television programs are more prone to violence than children who do not. the write also says that a survey indicated that ninety percent

of parents responding said that prime-time programs should show less violence. finally, the author comes to the conclusion that to lower the rate of teenage crime in alta, television watchers should demand a reduction in violence shown during prime time. this argument suffers from several critical fallacies. firstly, the writer equates the rate of increase in teenage crime in alta to the increase in violence shown on television but

gives no causal linkage other than the similar time periods. the

author makes no distinction between types of crimes - whether they are violent or nonviolent crimes by teenagers. furthermore, there are several possible alternative causes for the increase in teen crimes. for example, perhaps all types of crimes have increased for all ages, or maybe the police are

now doing a better job of catching teenage criminals than they were before. perhaps the reason for the increase is simply an increase in the overall population and that as a

violence, again skewing the results of the survey. even assuming the veracity of the sample population surveyed, it is not logical to associate television violence with teen crime solely on that basis. finally, the author makes the gratuitous assumption that simply having television viewers demand that television programmers reduce the amount of violence during prime time will lower the rate of teenage crime in alta. regardless of the flawed arguments previously discussed, simply demanding a change will have no effect whatsoever on teen crime. to strengthen his or her argument, the author

needs to show some direct causal linkage between television violence and teen crime rather than making vague and unsupported comparisons purporting to show a link. there is

no proof given either that television violence of any kind

causes teenage crime or that a reduction in prime time

violence will keep teenagers from breaking the law.（602 words）［题目］下述文字摘自一份地方性报纸《midvale观察家》所发表的社论。自二十世纪五十年代以来，当电视机开始出现于寻

常百姓家庭时，alta国内青少年犯罪率已呈现出持续上升的势头。这一青少年犯罪行为的上升与电视上所播放的暴力画面的增加成正比。按照几份全国性调查报告，在那些大量观看了涉及到暴力场面的电

视节目的青少年中，

即使是极为年幼的孩童在其家庭环境中也要比那些不看暴力节目的

孩童表现出更多的暴力行为。此外，在一项由《midvale观察家》所进行的调

查中，有90%的受访者为父母亲，他（她）们表示黄金时段的电视

内容——即晚上7点到9点所播放的节目——应该减少播放暴力内容。据此，为了降低alta国内青少年犯罪率，电视观众应该要求电

视节目编播者减少黄金时段所播放的暴力画面数量。[范文正文] 本社论作者陈述道，alta国内青少年犯罪率伴随着电视所播放的暴力场面

的增加而上升。这一情形始于二十世纪五十年代，因为电视在当时

被引入到普通百姓的家庭。此外，该作者陈述道，几项全国性调查

显示，观看暴力电视节目的孩子比那些不看同类节目的孩子更易于

形成暴力倾向。社论作者还指出，一份调查表明，受访的90%的父

母亲认为，黄金时段的电视节目不应含有那么多的暴力场面。最后，作者得出结论，认为要想降低alta国内的青少年犯罪率，电视观众

应要求减少黄金时段所播放的暴力画面。这一论述犯有若干关键性

的逻辑谬误。首先，社论作者将alta国内青少年犯罪率的上升与电

视所播放的暴力场面的增加相提并论，但除了二者在时间上吻合以外，没能给出任何因果关系。该作者没有对不同的犯罪种类作出区分——青少年所犯的罪行是属于暴力型的还是非暴力型的。此外，

对于青少年犯罪数量的增加，还存在着其他一些有可能的原因。例如，或许所有年龄段的所有类型的犯罪行为都呈上升态势，或者也

有可能，警察现在要比过去更擅长于抓捕青少年犯罪者了。更有可

能的是，犯罪上升的原因仅仅只是人口总量的上升所致，并且，作

为人口总量

【篇三：gre写作官方范文分析汇总】

写在前面的话：

1、官方范文的重要性不言而喻，大家对官方范文的态度也有褒有贬，有人说这些6分的官方文章都是大牛写出来的，我们学不来，于是

有的同学的重心就转向了北美范文。但有一点是不可否认的——官

方范文是真的6分，可是ets从来没承认过任何一个北美范文是六

分的，尽管也确实都是很好的文章。;

2、关于argument的重要性

很多人认为argument相对于issue来说容易些，也更好操作些，

更容易拿高分。我个人认为这是个误区。我们最后拿到的成绩是个

平均分，没有人知道具体每篇是多少。尽管有的同学会猜测自己得

分是多少多少，但是猜测毕竟是猜测。因为游戏是ets定的，他的标准和我们心中接受的标准肯定是不一样的，打个比方，看看后面第

三篇满分范文，让一般人看，估计没有几个人会毫不犹豫地给满分，甚至高分，但在ets眼中它就是满分;另外，实际上新东方的模版写

出来的argu文章和官方范文给出的满分文章是有很大差别的，主要

体现在是一个是零散凑成的(所谓的让步式攻击有时只是形式上的)而

另一个是有核心思想的，我会在后面的分析中具体说明。既然这样，

那完全有可能最终4分是来源于3分的argue加5分的issue，而

不是反之。所以说，我们有可能高估了我们写argument的能力。

3、对于官方范文，实际上这些看上去很天马行空的文章，潜在的蕴

涵了ets所要求的所有要点。之所以很多人看了很多遍没有看出什么可借鉴的地方，源于两点：一是没有和awintro上的要求相对应起

来看，二是没有把有限的6篇官方范文进行横比。。

4、本文整体结构：

第一部分awintro中a部分重点语句的归纳和梳理，方便与后面的

分析相对照。这里所有的英文均一字不差的摘自awintro。同时也作

为我的另一篇文章“awintro的解读”中的argument部分的补充。

第二部分是我的对于全部6份官方范文(结合awintro)的分析，本文

属于个人观点，一家之言难免存在偏颇和不足之处，恳请大家多多

指教。

第三部分为总结。

第四部分为了显示不是纯扯淡，并让我的证明更加具体，我按照我

分析出来的结果也独立写了一篇文章，请大家狂拍。

注：我把awintro和没有加入分析的六个范文放在附件里了，欢迎

大家下载。

5、ets就像是一个羞涩的女孩，从来不会直接告诉我们她想要什么，但同时，也在无时不刻的不在暗示我们她想要什么。

awintro的归纳和整理

1、在拿到题目后应该找出这些：what is offered as evidence, support, or proof;

what is explicitly stated, claimed, or concluded;what is assumed or supposed, perhaps without justification or

proof;what is not stated, but necessarily follows from what is stated。总结一下：即论据，结论，推理过程中的未加证明的假设，论据中的潜在后果。这四点都是需要我们尽量展示在第一段里面的。

2、同时，还要考虑原题目中的逻辑链：in addition, you should consider the structure of the argument。在这过程中更重要的是：sometimes implicit steps in the thinking process and consider whether the movement from

each one to the next is logically sound。这是我们攻击的要点，

尤其是隐含的逻辑步骤。

3、在分析时：you will not be expected to know methods of analysis or technical terms.随后在范文中可以看出，几乎是没有

那种像新东方那样精确错误名词的，而只是就着错误本身的逻辑进行分析。不需要给人感觉咱们特意学过逻辑，如果拽那些名词就给人感觉咱们特意学过逻辑，嘿嘿那既然是专业的要求也就更加苛刻了。

4、awintro中举一个例子：for instance, in one topic an elementary school principal might conclude that the new playground equipment has improved student attendance because absentee rates have declined since it was installed.论证的思路为：(1)意识到存在它因you will simply need to see that there are other possible explanations for the improved attendance,(2)提供具体的它因 to offer some common-sense examples, (3)从结论考虑，怎样才能使论证完整有力，即如何改进and perhaps to suggest what would be necessary to verify the conclusion. for instance, absentee rates might have decreased because the climate was mild. this would have to be ruled out in order for the principal’s conclusion to be valid.

5、官方认为的有几个关键名词需要解释，其中analysis这个词的解释很重要，很多同学知道这个词的意思是分析，但什么是分析就说得不是很清楚了。这里给出了清晰的答案：the process of breaking something (e.g., an argument) down into its component parts in order to understand how they work together to make up the whole。说白了，就是把原题中的三段式论证给打拆开，逐一地进行分析。同样的analytical writing的核心也就是拆开原命题，分成1串逻辑链，然后一部分一部分地讨论。

6、核心论证方法：找出隐含假设(并质疑)identify as many of its claims, conclusions, and underlying assumptions as possible;寻找它因和寻找反例think of as many alternative explanations and counterexamples as you can;加条件后讨论think of what additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the claims;提出改进方案ask yourself what changes in the argument would make the reasoning more sound。同学们以上四点是核心论证方法!!!所有的满分范文中都用到了这四种方法。

其中，在论证时需要：think of what additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the claims。这里重要的是加上一个常识性条件后，能意识到，有些情况，是支持原命题的。这一点至关重要，我们是讨论，要求同存异，而不是一味的批驳。

7、满分作文的模式：essays at the 6 score level that begin by briefly summarizing the argument and then explicitly stating

and developing the main points of the critique。先复述题目，然

后清晰的表明观点，然后发展。

8、高分作文的攻击顺序：you might want to organize your critique around the organization of the argument itself, discussing the argument line by line. or you might want to first point out a central questionable assumption and then move on to discuss related flaws in the arguments line of reasoning.这

里给出了两种攻击顺序，根据我读了一个多月awintro的经验来看，一般官方给出的建议总是越靠后的越好越nb，正如在官方推荐

issue观

点的时候总是把平衡观点放在最后。所以这里比较好的方案是先质

疑一个核心的假设，然后再按照原文逻辑来搞。

9、6分作文标准：

a 6 paper presents a cogent, well-articulated critique of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully.

a typical paper in this category

? clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully

? develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions

? effectively supports the main points of the critique

? demonstrates control of language, including appropriate

word choice and sentence variety

? demonstrates facility with the conventions (i.e., grammar, usage, and mechanics) of standard written english but may have minor errors 范文分析

第一篇文章

hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after rollerskating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. within this group of people, 75 percent

of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or

any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark

wrist pads, etc.). clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, rollerskaters will greatly reduce their risk of being

severely injured in an accident. 原题逻辑顺序为：数据显示了对

保护装备的需求==〉展开说明这个数据是怎样显示这样的需求的(即

用这个装备有什么效果)==〉结论：为了达到这个效果我们应该重金

买这保护设备。

benchmark 6

the notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. after all, it is the intent of these products to either prevent accidents from occuring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur. 前两

句首先肯定了原命题中值得肯定的地方。这是求同存异的表现。注

意这里第一句作者同意原命题的同时，在第二句紧接着就给出了展

开的证明。而没有光是罗列观点。however, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the

risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other (and potentially more significant) causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear. 再说原命题是存在逻辑漏洞的，即它因。这里并没

有展开论证，因为这是全文的中心句，整个文章都在后面给予论证。同时，最后半句给出了论据中的潜在后果。

first of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two

distinct kinds of gear -- preventative gear (such as light reflecting material) and pro

the argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters

who wear gear and those who do not.从本段起，连着的三个自然

段就是按照原文逻辑链的顺序进行攻击和质疑。实际上，这三段对

应的就是开头段的however之后的话。本段先质疑了人的本质的差异。论证方法是加条件后讨论。if is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. the skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. it may, in fact, be their natural caution and responsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room

rather than the gear itself.以上三句话展开证明第一个分支观点，

论证方法就是大名鼎鼎的三段论。加入常识性条件。即本身很注意

安全的人配戴保护装置==〉配戴装置后就能少出事故==〉故本身注

意安全才使得少出事故。 also, the statistic above is based

entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are relatively dangerous places to skate in the first place. people who are generally more safety conscious (and therefore more likely to wear gear) may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards. 以上两句展开证明第二个分支观点，论证方法同样为大名鼎鼎的三段论，加上常识性条件。即街道公园

本身不太安全==〉本身注意安全的人会选择安全的地方==〉来这里

的人都是本身不太注意安全的。这里最后一点是我给补充上的，原

文没有论证完全，但是基本的框架还是有的。

the statistic also goes not differentiate between severity of injuries.攻击逻辑链的第二步，受伤的程度没有说清。这里的论证方

法核心是质疑隐含假设，加条件后讨论。 the conclusion that

safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries. 指出原隐含假设。this is certainly not the case.

指出它错了。 also, given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and weekends (when doctors offices are closed), skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment. 加上人们晚上去滑的人多这个条

件后讨论，最终削弱原命题。

finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality (and presumably more expensive) gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear.攻击逻辑联的第三步，质量好

的不一定有用。核心论证方法为列举它因和提出建议。 for example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same preventative

benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed

only for skating.简单的t-shirt也能很有用。 before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by individual pieces of gear would be helpful.

建议我们对器材考虑得更加全面些。

the argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and potentially saves lives.强调原文的初衷还是很好的，就好像两个人在那里辩论，范文把原文给说急了，范文怕原文不高兴了，就再哄哄他：别看我

骂了这么多，你的初衷还是好的嘛!值得肯定。 before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be

made in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the benefits are needed. 范文看原文也不怎么哭了，于是最终还是委婉的表达了自己的建议。after all, a false confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all. 最后补充论证自己的建议：论证方法为反证法。同时范文在最后吓唬一吓原文，告诉他不这样做的可怕的后果。reader comment on 6

this outstanding response demonstrates the writers insightful analytical skills.

the introduction, which notes that adopting the prompts fallacious reasoning could ...inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear, is followed by a comprehensive examination of each of the arguments root flaws. specifically, the writer exposes several points that undermine the argument:

*that preventive and protective gear are not the same

*that skaters who wear gear may be less prone to accidents because they are, by nature, more responsible and cautious

*that the statistics do not differentiate by the severity of the injuries*that gear may not need to be high-quality to be beneficial

the discussion is smoothly and logically organized, and each point is thoroughly and cogently developed. in addition, the writing is succinct,