GRE作文入门讲解

写作中你是不是常常会遇到如下问题:

1、写作文写来写去总是觉得无话可说，感觉就是在凑字数.

2、写来写去总是那几种套路，看得自己也厌倦了，而且词汇贫乏，用来用去只是写浅显初级词，GRE词汇记不起，也不会活用。

3、作文时常常发现论据论证不足，而且常常发现脱离了现成提纲就写不下去，有时还有跑题倾向。

4、不会写复杂的长句，不知道牛人的复杂精巧的句子结构如何捏成的。

5、时间紧张，规定考试时间下各方面都较平时练习时相差甚远，如何解决？

一、GRE作文整体认识(基础)

　　GRE作文全称叫Analytical Writing Assessment,我们通常称之为“逻辑写作”，那么首先我们从这里端正一下我们对其的认识，重心把在“逻辑”(Analytical)之上，即这两篇作文的性质是以“逻辑思想”为中心的，换句话说，也就是“思想第一性”！尽管GRE作文对语言方面的要求远远高于其他同类考试，如TOEFL，但是不可否认的是，语言并不能主要影响你的得分，思想才是关键。我见过很多考生，语言能力通过反复练习，借鉴和背诵，达到了相当高的水平，但是写出来的东西是“成人思想婴儿化”的东西，肤浅无深度，最后连qualify的级别都达不到，就是一开始重心把偏的缘故。好，意识到了这点，我们开始具体分析如何操练GRE作文。在以下的分析中，我将重点剖析大家普遍较难掌握的ISSUE类作文大讲特讲，而对ARGUMENT只是在几个关键的须纠正常识错误的地方带一下即可。Are you ready? Let's go!!!

二、GRE作文的要求(根本)

　　无论是ISSUE还是ARGUMENT在评分标准上都有共同之处，考察之后，不难发现，都要求：第一，观点有深度，例证有说服力；第二，组织有条理；第三，表达清晰准确；第四，语言流利，句式复杂，词汇丰富；第五，语言地道标准；第六，少有轻微错误。可以说，这六条标准就是6个评分段，大家平时在练习时，可以参照这六条给自己大分，同时我们可以看到，关于语言要求的内容都在“末三条”，可见其地位较“思想逻辑及条理性”可退居其次，从而印证了上述结论。第一条说的是“思想性”，第二条说的是“结构性”，第三条说的是“表达性”，从这里入手，我们就分别采取“各个击破”的方法解剖GRE作文的本质。

三、GRE作文的思想性(第一性)

　　原则一：准确审题，全面回应

　　很多考生往往对关乎自己作文命运最关键的部分却不屑一顾，结果往往“下笔数百字，离题十万里”。时间对于考生来说的的确确是个不可不考虑的重要环节，但是审题是一种好的“习惯”，是对应试者最基本素质的考验，马虎不得。后面我们会提到如何作文，就是如何“借题发挥”，如何“点到为止”，不经过这道工序，是不可能“功成身退”的。之所以如此关注强调这点，一方面是因为一旦“跑题”(主要是在ISSUE中)，将接受ETS最severe的惩罚，被叛“0”分，同时也是因为这种现象很普遍，比如下面一篇来自网上的ISSUE作文就出现了这种“症状”。

　　注：病历文章来自猴哥满分网，范文主要就所讨论之处作出示范，并非一定是什么“高分作文”，主要是silentwings的文章，所选话题均来自近半年来笔者等人在华东区考场实战真题。

　　29."Public figures such as actors, politicians, and athletes should expect people to be interested in their private lives. When they seek a public role, they should expect that they will lose at least some of their privacy."

　　(病历文)

　　Everyone has the right to keep his/her privacy, including the public figures. People have the nature to learn others' privacy, especially those of the celebrities for various reasons, such as reverance and curiousness, but it doesn't follow that they are entitled to pry others' private life, and it is really unfair to say that any public figure choose to expose his/her privacy by himself/herself as long as he/she seek a public role.

　　In the current days, it is a widely spread atmosphere that people take a strong interest in talking about the private life of celebrities, they even rival each other in the fact that who knows more about a common interested celebrity. To cater such a taste, more and more mass media try their best to collect each aspect of a public figure's private life with an interest even exceeding that of making known their work. When we read a entertainment paper or magazine, we are certain to find that most of the content are the private life of singers and stars, such as someone got a divorce with his/her ex-girlfried/ex-boyfriend and is now keeping contract with someone else, etc.

　　All that exists is not valid, we couldn't say that it is in reason to spy into others' privacy just because most people prefer to do so, and we should not just accept a unfair fact without exert any effort to change the circumstance. To put your own feet in the shoes of the public figures, do you feel comfortable to be watched everywhere you go, and find a lot of affair news about you in the media especially when most of the news are made out by the pressmen? If your answer to this question is no, you should agree that we are obliged to do something to change the current situation about the private lift of public figures. Special laws should be enacted to discipline the prying into privacy of the mass media, sound should be heared arguing again people's interest in celebrities' private life.

　　Only when the public figures are librated from the harassment of worrying about their privacy's protection, we can expect a better service from them, and in that case, more capable people will be attract to pursue a public role. Suppose that if a singer is followed everywhere he/she goes, how can he/she lead a normal life as common people, how can he/she gets a relaxation? He/she must be cautious when he/she every words, he/she can't expect a casual and relaxing atmosphere as every common people can enjoy. It is difficult for him/her to concentrate all their energy in working, as a consequence, we would lose some more brilliant performance we can expect otherwise.

　　In summary, we should call on the public to cease to spy into the celebrities' privacy and pay more attention to their public life, only in that way can the public figure enjoy their life better and can we expect a better service from them. (496 words)

　　评析：这篇文章的主要失误来自作者未能仔细审题便下笔一蹴而就，题目所讨论的对象明明是Public Figures,从头到尾讨论的主体居然成了Public，说他们如何如何关注明星隐私，说他们如何如何设身处地地为明星们着想，最后总结说是公众应还明星们于自由之躯，把一上来合理的“否定回应”抛之脑后，从而导致文章“答非所问”。考虑到文章一上来合理回应，以及不错的语言表达，仅有几处不起眼的拼写错误，应判为“2分”(有严重错误类文章)。

　　在出示范文之前，我们就此题谈谈“审题”和“回应”这两个基本问题。

　　(1)审题的原则：“字斟句酌，明确对象”，我们读题就是要弄懂题目要让我们干什么，然后才能相应知道该怎么干。GRE作文都是议论文，写议论文就好比“打仗”，知己知彼方能百战不殆。这个题目不难读懂，先翻译如下：“公众人物，例如演员、政治家和运动员等应该预料到人们对他们私生活的关注。当他们决定成为公众角色时，他们应该料到自己的一些隐私将被供之于众。”显然，经过审题，我们发现题目探讨的是公众人物“是否应该”预料到自己隐私的暴光。话题将讨论设定在这个范围内，同时给出了一个参考的见解，“他们当然应该知道”，并给出理由，“他们自己决定成为公众人物”。整个话题是个“should”类型的ISSUE(详细分类见后文)，前后句呈”因果关系“(执果索因)。这才是完整的审题，才是完整正确把握文章的第一步。

　　(2)回应的原则：“攻其一点，兼顾其余”。也就是说，回应要找准重点，其余部分只须略微带过，作到“回应重点突出而全面”，这点在ISSUE和“ARGUMENT”中都是普遍适用的大前提原则，也是“高分作文”的要领之一。这里我们已经知道作这篇文章要从“公众人物”自身出发，以他们的角度来看待自己隐私是否该暴光的问题，这样我们就找到中心回应点是“should expect”,对象是“public figures”,而例证可以充分利用话题的友好提示：列举的三种人，选择熟悉易于表达的来充实论证，免了自己的劳神工夫，这种资源一定要善加利用，一方面可充实论据，另一方面，作到了兼顾其他，全面回应的原则。下面的范文采取AGREE的态度，采用should类文章的清晰“套路”，作到了合理回应，请读者就这方面仔细分析。

　　(范文)

　　A million times I have heard the accident regarding a certain famous star shouted to separate fervid journalists and interviews from various media outside his or her door, which finally results a farce of quarrel and fight. Sometimes I really hate those drab reporters, who surprisingly have the endless power and fresh tricks to snatch almost each shadow of celebrities together with the innate ability to embellish them so "fascinating". At the same time those public figures shriek for their overexposure of privacy I am always pity for their embarrassment, for their career they really have no better choice but to tolerate, for their legitimate rights they had better struggle against the privacy revelation. But most of them, in the end, choose the former despite without any mustered negotiation.

　　It is obvious to take into mind that being a public cynosure the first thing one has to be even eager to sacrifice is the privacy, in that the quality of public is just the opposite of privacy, in the rim of relationship, either one can only be maintained. The fundamental aim for a celebrity is to stand strong in the sight of public and win over the precious approbation from his or her fans. So packing oneself in his single world can help nothing to add his reputation, what he strives to do is the reverse-anatomize oneself in front of the public stares and acclaim for his names being praised or criticized in the sun-then can he make himself known out of the nonplus of being forgotten and lose his prestige in public. As a result, the condition of privacy being traced and published is no more a paramount incidence but under the prediction of them; after all, no reports, no celebrities.

　　Hence, if a public figure intends to preserve his title, no grouch he ought to hang at lips, on the contrary, he might be thankful to these indefatigable journalists and reporters for their free propaganda of his talk and behavior pattern. Take the teenage star-backstreet boys for instance; with the sales of their albums skyrocket, their reputation is more and more stentorian, following the trend of their ordinary life becoming an incandescent focus attracting public eyes. Then as we all know, backstreet clothes have been prevalent, backstreet sneakers also is in heat sale, and personal parlance begins to appear some exotic features commonly shared by teenagers just because backstreet boys ever talked like that. A five-boy chorus can influence so many groups of people by what they said and what they did, the feeling of satisfaction and proud could be no better to describe their elation of success than for the byproducts of the privacy publicized, this time they probably even couldn't help to rush up to the media reporters and proffer their kisses.

　　Oh, well, to the scandals mostly reported in any entertainment channel, these figures ultimately reaches a top limitation of inured tolerance, especially those survive by their shingles of excellent prestige, such as those politicians. In the period of election of presidents or senators, the most headache those participants suffer is the side report, which has the overwhelming clout to remove his precious stake to his adversary's side. Then the only thing they must remember is the discretion of their words and behaviors either in public case or merely in private room. There is no absolute stalwart wall that can resist the strong blast, and the unique paper that can wrap the burning flame. According to this principle, the expectation for their privacy no longer staying for himself is no doubt fathomable to them, astonishment is just an effete struggle.

　　To sum up, being an illustrious man have to pay his privacy for the undertaking brilliance, and he should understand without the public desire to delve their everyday life instead of merely relying on their limited published works, they convincingly cannot earn such a lot from their maniac supporters, who also need them to care for and give enough regards as feedback. Once this complex relationship being disentangled, I think, the public figures and populace will make a balance on the scale of privacy revelation. (690 words)

　　在切实掌握好这些技巧之后，后续的问题也会接踵而来，很多考生在认识到问题的严重性之后，不知道如何从开始回应起就把握好文章的走向而不跑题，作好条理性的框架是必须的，但是最简便的方法就是(千万注意啊！！！)——将话题的内容编成问句，自己的每段回应编成回答，如果作到有问必答，那么你就没有跑题，否则就要重新构思回到正轨上来。这个方法在备考初期研究题库预先构思时尤为重要，他能检验你提纲的合理性，否则一旦到了考场，你来不及重新构思而盲目照搬，后果不堪设想。希望这里的这点提醒能够引起各位考生足够的重视，不要白白无谓牺牲。

　　而这个问题对于ARGUMENT来说，情况要好得多，一方面由于ARGUMENT回应方式比较固定且其较ISSUE来说约定俗成的高度模式化，另一方面是由于ARGUMENT的易于操作性和熟悉性，利用的资源都来自题干本身，因而考生在这篇作文上很少看走眼。但是也有些题目，由于脱胎于ETS惯常的逻辑单题模式，本身语言饶口，且容易将论据与结论混淆，从而导致一定程度的攻击失误，虽然不至于像ISSUE那样导致全盘失误，但是毕竟在最好拿分的项目上失分无疑是给原本脆弱的分数雪上加霜。下面我们看一道在去年年末左右华东考场遇到的一道少见的ARGUMENT难题，难就难在对于论据和结论的辩识和推理上，还有就是逻辑谬误不是像其他题目那样明显地向你挥手——“向我开炮！！！”

　　142.The article entitled 'Eating Iron' in last month's issue of Eating for Health reported that a recent study found a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. Further, it is well established that there is a link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease, and red meat is high in iron. On the basis of the study and the well-established link between red meat and heart disease, we can conclude that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, then, is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.

　　析题：仔细读过，发现这道题有点绕，很多考生曾经有过这样的困惑：“我没有理解最后一句话的意思is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.是说high iron level于heart disease之间的关系是red meat与heart disease之间有关的结果那作者到底是认为high iron level和heart disease之间有没有关系阿？”再读之下，我们会发现作者其实做了一个顺接推论：red meat引起心脏病------------> red meat里面还有大量的铁------------------> 高铁引起心脏病，就是这么一个简单的推论过程，关键认清谁推出谁，就要在审题时注意到关键的这么看似不经意却被友好的ETS“重复两次”的短语“well established”，也就是说“大量红肉与心脏病之间一定有联系”是不容质疑的论据，即本题论据是不容批驳的，关键问题在于由论据推导出结论的时候犯了“Implicit causal claims”和“gratuitous assumptions”(详细逻辑谬误分类见后文“七宗罪”)，因而我们就可以以次展开攻击。很多来自网上的文章和提纲在本题上颠倒了推导对象，把“高铁引起心脏病”作为论据来推出“red meat引起心脏病”，结果导致文章失误。下面读者可通过以下范文检验一下该论证过程和思路：

　　(范文)

　　The correlation of the high irons level and heart disease the arguer trying to prove is not as perfect as he assumes. Although at first glance, his cause-and-effect analysis seems quite cogent, yet it can't stand much reexamination.

　　I agree to the well-established theory concerning the necessary relation between the large amount of red meat in people's diet and heart disease, but no other possibilities can be ruled out except for one of the ingredients-iron. It is obvious that the arguer constructs his building of conclusion on the basis of the conviction of the deleterious function stems from the iron. While not only a single iron does red meat contain, as we all know, many other components also have the influential role once being indigested into human body. For instance, some type of particular protein it might include, instead of the iron, is the substantial root of heart attack. So the arguer's peroration has no convincing power for this gratuitous assumption.

　　Moreover, even though his deduction does really derive from some passage of authoritative researches he has no opportunity to list below, the assertion about the high levels of iron related to the possibility of heart disease cannot be got through by merely so qualified the evidence exhibited here. According to the arguer's elicitation, we believe the red meat doescontain large amount of iron, however, we might ask ourselves such questions enlightened by our common sense, "Does the amount of iron involved in red meat reach the dangerous level enough to lead to heart disease?" The answer we can't obtain through this short argument, thus directly make us doubt the whole fruits the arguer attained.

　　As it stands, the study reported on the published media Eating for Health is inevitable filled with some lethal logic fallacies, which finally weakens the cogency of the whole claims. To such a paramount and sensitive issue relative to people's health and life, scrutiny is not allowed to be neglected; and it is just for this point, I'm afraid, no people could ultimately abjure for eating red meat as a result of reading this ridiculous article. (352 words)