2017-08-09 347阅读
GRE考试作文的经典句式分类总结。新GRE写作部分的备考过程不同于GRE考试的其他部分,比如数学部分需要多做习题进行练习,而新GRE作文需要积累大量的写作素材才能在写作的过程中有东西可写,背诵一些经典句式对于快速提高自己的GRE写作有很大作用的。
新GRE写作 范文第一篇文章
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-rlecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and rlective 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 rlecting material) and protective gear (such as helmets). body打头第一段是属于攻击总前提假设的,作者认为这个(即保护性设备和防护性设备的差别)是有必要在讨论一切之前弄清楚的。论证方法为质疑假设,加条件后讨论,提出建议。实际上,这个前提对应的就是开头段的前两句话。深层的含义就是,尽管我在开头对你的某一个部分作了让步似的同意,但是这个同意也是建立在一定的假设基础上的,要是这个假设搞不清楚,哼哼我让不让步还不一定呢!本段就来讨论这个假设基础。Preventative gear is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the "other" is a responsible and caring individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention. Protective gear is intended to reduce the fect of any accident, whether it is caused by an other, the skater or some force of nature. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. 这两句分别从两个方面进行了论述,为本段第一句话的论证进行服务,每一方面的具体方法是先定义,再比较。论证方法为加上不同的条件后进行讨论,比如前一句话假定只有防护性装备会怎样,后一句话假定只有保护性装备会怎么样。The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. 这里提出了作者的建议,即如何通过进一步的完善使原命题更加的有力。These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more benicial. 如果这个问题(保护防护设备的差别)解决了后面的讨论才能继续。所以说,总的来说这一段是讨论了原文一个核心的前提。
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 therore 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&apos 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 benicial 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 benit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating.简单的t-shirt也能很有用。 Bore skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benit 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。 Bore conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be made in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the benits 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 infective 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 writer&aposs insightful analytical skills.
The introduction, which notes that adopting the prompt&aposs fallacious reasoning could "...inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear," is followed by a comprehensive examination of each of the argument&aposs 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 benicial
新GRE作文范文是考生们备考新GRE写作的题库,多多背诵一些范文,学习里面的经典句式运用到自己的写作当中,肯定会为自己的GRE考试增分的。
以上就是GRE考试作文的经典句式总结,新GRE作文素材的积累才是提高新GRE写作的基础,脑子里必须多记忆一些素材,才能在考试的过程中顺利发挥。
Copyright 2000 - 2020 北京澳际教育咨询有限公司
www.aoji.cn All Rights Reserved | 京ICP证050284号
总部地址:北京市东城区 灯市口大街33号 国中商业大厦2-3层
马育 向我咨询
行业年龄 23年
成功案例 7231人
17年来为数千名学生打开通往新世界的大门,擅长名校申请和签证指导。专业的服务深受学生和家长们的认可。多次获得澳际集团 金牌服务奖杯
高国强 向我咨询
行业年龄 11年
成功案例 2937人
留学关乎到一个家庭的期望以及一个学生的未来,作为一名留学规划导师,我一直坚信最基本且最重要的品质是认真负责的态度。基于对学生和家长认真负责的原则,结合丰富的申请经验,更有效地帮助学生清晰未来发展方向,顺利进入理想院校。
薛占秋 向我咨询
行业年龄 10年
成功案例 1869人
从业3年来成功协助数百同学拿到英、美、加、澳等各国学习签证,递签成功率90%以上,大大超过同业平均水平。
Tara 向我咨询
行业年龄 6年
成功案例 1602人