留学加拿大标化考试GRE写作如何从3分提高到4分
留学加拿大标化考试GRE写作如何从3分提高到4分
GRE写作的论证过程中，需要用严谨的逻辑思维推导出结论，如果逻辑存在以上论证错误，文章就是不严谨的，肯定要被扣分。GRE写作
论证错误
1)范围方面：小范围推大范围、范围误用、错误的类比、过去和将来时间混淆等;
2)因果关系方面：因果关系简单化、先后顺序导致因果关系、同时发生判为因果关系、强加因果等;
3)必要性问题：非黑即白思想、片面性和单方性等。
缺乏论据
有足够的论据支撑文章的观点或结论，可以是文章很有说服力，而且有条理。但是如果文章缺乏足够的论据，这样的文章会很空洞，也是分数不高的一个原因。
逻辑混乱
使用表述不准确的词汇，或者以偏概全的表述，甚至一些极端的表达观点，都会导致文章的逻辑混乱。
例如某类事物其中的A,B,C有一些共同的特性，从而推导出该类事物都具备这类特性，这就是以偏概全的论证方法。
低级错误
1）语法出错：有时候往往会忽略一些小错误，导致一些不必要的丢分。比如：主谓不一致，单复数，三单形式等等。
2）单词拼写错误：有时候很可能着急打字，有一些简单单词的拼写错误导致丢分。
3）词性误用：“词性误用”常表现为：介词当动词用;形容词当副词用;名词当动词用等。比如：None can negative the importance of money.
分析：negative系形容词，误作动词。
应该为：None can deny the importance of money.
以上就是作文中容易丢分的点。
然后对比自己写的文章，进行分析总结一下，如果文章中存在以上问题，可以吸取经验进行改正，避免这些丢分点。
最后附上一篇6分作文范文及文章分析，供各位参考。
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（面积）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."
题目分析：
论据1：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
论据2：if no shopping centers or houses were built there,Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland
论据3：If the land becomes a school site,no shopping centers or houses can be built there,and substantial acreage（面积）would probably be devoted to athletic fields
论据4：a large majority of our children participate in sports
结论：Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland
分析：
1．从论据1，2到论据3的推理本身就可以质疑，既然５年前决定了不开发，那么必须有充足的理由确定现在的情况发生了改变．否则，不能说现在就必须reconsider this issue
2．论据3的本身推理有错误，没有证据表明学校建成了就no shopping centers or houses can be built there，剩余的能够兴建体育场的面积完全能够保证建立起shopping centers and houses.相反，也许是学校内的建成促进了购物和住房的发展（许多家庭为了孩子上学会在附近阻房子住，刺激两者发展）同时，我们是否有足够的经费建立体育场也是一个疑问．
3．a large majority of our children participate in sports不能说明大家参加的运动都必须在田径[运动]场上进行．也就是说田径场不能适合所有孩子的需要，同样，相对于park,school也不是适合所有市民的需要的．
正文：
This letter to the editor begins by stating the reasons the residents of Morganton voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state.The letter states that the entire community could benefit from an undeveloped parkland.The residents of the town wanted to ensure that no shopping centers or houses would be built there.This,in turn,would provide everyone in the community with a valuable resource,a natural park.
The letter then continues by addressing the issue of building a school on the land.The author reasons that this would also benefit the entire community as a natural parkland since much of the land would be devoted to athletic fields.The author of the letter comes to the conclusion that building a school on the land would be the best thing for everyone in the community.（这种开头可以说是非常详细的复述了原文的内容，并且可以通过黑体的短语看出作者复述的顺序，写了13７词，这里还没有进入正式的批驳，这是不是可以作为＂开头就要开门见山点题＂这样一个观点的反例呢？）学在加拿大
This letter is a one-sided argument about the best use of the land known as Scott Woods.The author may be a parent whose child would benefit from a new school,（学生家长方面）a teacher who thinks a school would boost the community,（教师方面）or just a resident of Morganton.（中立方面）Regardless of who the author is,there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore.（这个并列写的非常的妙，大家一定能体会出来overlook和choose to ignore用在这里有怎么样的含义）作者本段其实在质疑原文作者的立场是否中立，如果不是中立的立场，而是利益涉及的一方，那么以后的论断就很难说服别人．
Using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for a natural parkland.（首先就很明确的把build a school和a natural parkland完全分离开，使后面原文作者的说法完全被推翻，这可以说是一个核心的问题）While all the members of the community could potentially benefit from a parkland,only a percentage of the population would realistically benefit from a new school.（两者的主要区别）The author fails to recognize people like the senior citizens of the community.What interest do they have in a new school?It only means higher taxes for them to pay.They will likely never to and utilize the school for anything.On the other hand,anyone can go to a park and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness.The use of the land for a school would destroy the benefit of a park for everyone.In turn,it would supply a school only to groups of people in exactly the right age range,not too young or too old,to reap the benefits.
本段质疑核心的问题！
Another point（自然的过度，没有用first,secondly……）the author stresses is that the use of the land for things like athletic fields somehow rationalizes(使．．．．．．合理化)the destruction of the park.What about children who don't play sports?（首先考虑到不是所有的children都会使用运动场）Without the school,they could enjoy the land for anything.A playing field is a playing field.Children are not going to go out there unless they are into sports.（park和运动场的第二个区别）There are many children in schools who are not interested in or are not able to play sports.This is yet another group who will be left out of the grand benefits of a school that the author talks about.
The author's conclusion that"there would be no better use of land in our community than this...""is easily arguable.The destruction of Scott Woods for the purpose of building a school would not only affect the ambience of Morganton,it would affect who would and would not be able to utilize the space.If the residents as a whole voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state,this argument will not sway their decision.The use of the land for a school will probably benefit even less people than a shopping center would.The whole purpose of the vote was to keep the land as an asset for everyone.The only way to do this is to keep it in an undeveloped state.Using the land for a school does not accomplish this.（总结，重述，可以发现作者的总结没有丝毫和前面重复的说法，虽然说的是一样的意思！这一个总结段是总结全文的经典！）GRE写作技巧
COMMENTARY
This outstanding response begins somewhat hesitantly;the opening paragraphs summarize but do not immediately engage the argument.However,the subsequent paragraphs target the central flaws in the argument and analyze them in almost microscopic detail.
（从这句评论我们可以明显感知到评分的核心在后面的分析，关键不是如何开头，关键是如何分析！）
The writer's main rebuttal points out that"using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for natural parkland."Several subpoints develop this critique,offering perceptive reasons to counter the argument's unsubstantiated assumptions.This is linked to a related discussion that pointedly exposes another piece of faulty reasoning:that using land for athletic fields"rationalizes the destruction of the park."
The extensively developed and organically organized analysis continues into a final paragraph that takes issue with the argument's conclusion that"there would be no better use of land in our community than this."
Diction and syntax are varied and sophisticated,and the writer is fully in control of the standard conventions.While there may be stronger papers that merit a score of 6,this essay demonstrates insightful analysis,cogent development,and mastery of writing.It clearly earns a 6.
