GRE写作30分钟内产出高质量文章写法规范介绍

GRE写作30分钟内产出高质量文章写法规范介绍，快来一起学习吧，分享下面小编就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。

GRE写作30分钟内产出高质量文章写法规范介绍

步骤一：审题

审题是写文章的基础，只有读懂了题目，才能写出切题的文章，考生在身体过程中需要对题中的信息进行筛选，哪些是有用信息，哪些是无用信息，然后把有用信息按一定顺序分小点列出来，并在此基础上确立自己的论述观点，围绕观点构筑文章结构。

步骤二：遣词造句

1. 根据审题步骤所列出的内容要点，列出文章中可能要用到的关键词语(如动词、短语等)

2. 列出文章中可能用到的句型

3. 列出文章中可能用到的语句间的连接词

4. 按内容要点顺序和所列词语、句型写出单句

步骤三：串句成文

这是写作的关键步骤。不能只是简单翻译内容要点，要作一些适当发挥，使整篇文章既有“骨架”，又有“血肉”。同时应注意以下几点：

1. 注意全文的时态运用，整篇文章的时态应该保持一致性。

2. 注意文章的布局结构。恰当的段落划分，前后语句的连贯，句型的选择，连接词的运用，使文章层次分明，语言畅通，连接恰当，最终为文章增色出彩。

步骤四：通读检查

这是完善写作任务的最后步骤。通读文章的同时，检查前后内容是否连贯，语言是否畅通，段落划分是否分明，句型及连接词的运用是否恰当，时态运用是否一致，标点符号是否规范等等。完成了这些检查并作出修改订正，一定会使全文更加规范、更加自然流畅。

GRE写作的练习和训练是一个长期的过程，需要依靠多加练习来逐渐积累和提升写作能力，考生在训练时应注重整体写作流程的规范化训练，只有如此才能做到对写作能力的整体提高，考试时更能发挥出相应的实力，写出优秀的高分作文。

GRE阅读写作分析--The end of the free lunch

The demise of a popular but unsustainable business model now seems inevitable.

“IN RECENT years, consumers have become used to feasting on online freebies of all sorts: news, share quotes, music, e-mail and even speedy internet access. These days, however, dotcoms are not making news with yet more free offerings, but with lay-offs—and with announcements that they are to start charging for their services.” These words appeared in The Economist in April 2001, but they’re just as applicable today. During the dotcom boom, the idea got about that there could be such a thing as a free lunch, or at least free internet services. Firms sprang up(spring up like mushrooms 雨后春笋般的)to offer content and services online, in the hope that they would eventually be able to “monetise” the resulting millions of “eyeballs” by selling advertising. Things did not work out that way, though, and the result was the dotcom crash. Companies tried other business models, such as charging customers for access, but very few succeeded in getting people to pay up.

Then it happened all over again, starting in 2004 with the listing of Google on the stockmarket, which inflated a new “Web 2.0” bubble. Google’s ability to place small, targeted text advertisements next to internet-search results, and on other websites, meant that many of the business models thought to have been killed by the dotcom bust now rose from the grave. It seemed there was indeed money to be made from internet advertising, provided you could target it accurately—a problem that could be conveniently outsourced to Google. The only reason it had not worked the first time around, it was generally agreed, was a shortage of broadband connections. The pursuit of eyeballs began again, and a series of new internet stars emerged: MySpace, YouTube, Facebook and now Twitter. Each provided a free service in order to attract a large audience that would then—at some unspecified point in the future—attract large amounts of advertising revenue. It had worked for Google, after all. The free lunch was back.

Now reality is reasserting itself once more, with familiar results. The number of companies that can be sustained by revenues from internet advertising turns out to be much smaller than many people thought, and Silicon Valley seems to be entering another “nuclear winter” (see article).

Internet companies are again laying people off, scaling(scaling) back, shutting down, trying to sell themselves to deep-pocketed industry giants, or talking of charging for their content or services. Some Web 2.0 darlings (MySpace, YouTube) managed to find buyers before the bubble burst, thus passing the problem of finding a profitable business model to someone else (News Corporation and Google, respectively). But quite(=rather=fairly=entirely) how Facebook or Twitter will be able to make enough money to keep the lights on for their millions of users remains unclear. Facebook has had several stabs(stab) at a solution, most recently with a scheme called Facebook Connect. Twitter’s founders had planned to forget about revenues until 2010, but the site now seems to be preparing for the inclusion of advertising.

The bill, sir

The idea that you can give things away online, and hope that advertising revenue will somehow materialise later on, undoubtedly appeals to users, who enjoy free services as a result. There is business logic to it, too. The nature of the internet means that the barrier to entry for new companies is very low—indeed, thanks to technological improvements, it is even lower in the Web 2.0 era than it was in the dotcom era. The internet also allows companies to exploit network effects to attract and retain users very quickly and cheaply. So it is not surprising that rival search engines, social networks or video-sharing sites give their services away in order to attract users, and put the difficult question of how to make money to one side. If you worry too much about a revenue model early on, you risk being left behind.

Ultimately, though, every business needs revenues—and advertising, it transpires, is not going to provide enough. Free content and services were a beguiling idea. But the lesson of two internet bubbles is that somebody somewhere is going to have to pick up the tab for lunch.

补摹写类~

1、not yet.....but...(用法很灵活~,但MS注意前后要反义)

It's strange that our boss not yet punished them but made a rise in their salary

2、连着用动名词的那句~

The students are again ,after the examination, complaining about lack of time, regreting their inattention or checking answers with others in fear and trembling.

GRE优秀作文：批判性思维

Too much time， money， and energy are spent developing new and more elaborate technology. Society should instead focus on maximizing the use of existing technology for the immediate benefit of its citizens.

I must say that I reject this statement. While it is true that we need to support society as much as possible with current technology， that does not in any way mean that we should stop progressing simply because our current technology cannot handle all the problems we have brought to it. Does that mean that we should simply accept the status quo and make do? No， I don't think so. To do so would be tantamount to adopting a fatalistic approach; I think most people would reject that.

Technology has helped， and it has hurt. Without it， we would never have our standard of living， nor quality of nutrition， expectation of a long and productive life span， and the unshakable belief that our lives can be made even better. But it has also brought us universal pollution， weapons so powerful as to be capable of rendering us extinct， and the consequent fear for our survival as species and as a planet. Technology is indeed a double-edged sword. And yet， I still have to argue in its favor， because without it， we have no hope.

Some might argue that we would be better off without technology. They might say that a return to a less technologically driven approach to life would have the benefits of reducing stress and allowing us to live simpler， happier lives， like those of our forebears. Such an idea is seductive， so much so that much of art and all of nostalgia are devoted to it. But upon closer inspection， one realizes that such a move would only return us to a life of different kinds of stress， one of false simplicity， one fraught with danger. It would be a life without antibiotics where a minor cut could prove deadly. It would be a life where childbirth is the main killer of women， and where an emergency is dealt with in terms of hours and days instead of minutes and hours; a life where there are no phones or cars or planes or central heating， no proven drug therapies to treat mental illness， no computers. Would this world really make people happy?

What we already have， we have. And since the only way to move is forward， instead of allowing ourselves to be paralyzed by fear and worry， we need to learn how to clean up the pollution we have caused， and how to deal with a world that feeds on weapons and mass destruction. Doing these things means having to move away from technology into a more difficult realm， that of diplomacy and compromise： to move from the bully stance of “I am bigger and better and I have more toys and so I win” to a place where everyone wins.

Technology is the thing that will allow people to do that. But， advanced as it is， it is still in its infancy. We have to allow it to grow up and mature in order to reap the real rewards that it can bring. And there are even greater rewards ahead of us than what the world has already experienced. When technology is pushed to the outer edge， that is where serendipitous discoveries can occur. This has been seen throughout technological advancement， but the easiest example is probably the space program which made us think， really hard， about how to do things in a different environment. It gave us telecommunications， new fabrics and international cooperation. Paramedical devices， so that people can be treated even as they are being transported to the hosptal， are a direct development of that technology. None of this would have happened in the time frame that it did if we had not pushed for technological advancement.

GRE写作30分钟内产出高质量文章写法规范介绍相关文章：