怎样用GRE作文例子

怎样用GRE作文例子，快来学习学习吧，分享下面小编就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。

怎样用GRE作文例子

我的问题：

1、例子少，写的时候脑子里没有。

2、好不容易想到一个却不靠边。------------impair论证

3、例子也好，也支持观点，就是相关词汇没有，很遗憾。比如孙子说：攻成者下，攻心者上。首先人名就拼不出来。

我的分析：

1、对题目认识不够，认识还是来源与相关的例子，没读过相关的资料，自然没有相关的知识。

2、知道一些例子，但不是很详细，比如Prohibition，就知道是讲法律不能干预伦理道德，但再详细就不知道了，这样在论证上就容易出问题。

3、没有相关的知识支持，观点就空了。

我的设想：

1、可以大家都来做一点工作，丰富相应的知识。就好比写综述，第一步就是收集资料，有正面的反面，这样就好认识每一道题的含义了，比抽象理解一些标准的提纲要深刻的多。我是看孙远的书的，他老人家给出了每道题的提纲，分类，分类中还给了相应的材料---写作工具箱(尽管有限，)就是让大家丰富文化的背景，其实除了应考，对人生也有帮 助，I think it will help to open your mind. 至少老美的文化有许多先进的东西。

2、plagiarism可以避免，我们写中文举例子时，是整段的从某本书上抄吗，不排除少数人，这毕竟是一个创新的年代。我们在举英文例子时，可以一样，例子和语言表达是分开的，语言可以单独联系，比如阅读，批改别人的作文，积累，等等，用自己的方式表达每一个例子，怎么会出现plagiarism。

3、建一个例子或论据库，可以逐渐完善，就象CNKI，pubmed，OVID，数据库一样，可以从各个方面检索相关内容，比如题号、名人姓名、关键词、等等。只要大家动手，就不难。国家大的工程不都是分各单位完成的吗。咱们现在的例子都在文章中，而且有重复，可能其实并不全。

4、看到的朋友都可以帮忙，帮助的过程就是学习的过程，无所谓奉献，我认为一个好的机制就是：谁出力大，谁收获多。如果不是这样，那么这个事物只能逐渐枯竭直至毁灭。不是No pain, No gain. 而是Great pain, Great gain.

5、我只是这样想，科研老师告诉我们：答案经常是否定的，研究者只得重新开始这一过程。

但振作起来!好的研究)者使自己与众不同之处在于他们锲而不舍的精神、不断的思考和努力，而不仅仅是灵感。

GRE考试高分作文精选

第四类题材 Politics

Issue 8

"It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."

I agree with the speaker that it is sometimes necessary, and even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. A contrary view would reveal a naivety about the inherent nature of public politics, and about the sorts of compromises on the part of well-intentioned political leaders necessary in order to further the public's ultimate interests. Nevertheless, we must not allow our political leaders undue freedom to withhold information, otherwise, we risk sanctioning demagoguery and undermining the philosophical underpinnings of any democratic society.

One reason for my fundamental agreement with the speaker is that in order to gain the opportunity for effective public leadership, a would-be leader must first gain and maintain political power. In the game of politics, complete forthrightness is a sign of vulnerability and naivety, neither of which earn a politician respect among his or her opponents, and which those opponents will use to every advantage to defeat the politician. In my observation some measure of pandering to the electorate is necessary to gain and maintain political leadership. For example, were all politicians to fully disclose every personal foibles, character flaw, and detail concerning personal life, few honest politicians would ever by elected. While this view might seem cynical, personal scandals have in fact proven the undoing of many a political career; thus I think this view is realistic.

Another reason why I essentially agree with the speaker is that fully disclosing to the public certain types of information would threaten public safety and perhaps even national security. For example, if the President were to disclose the government's strategies for thwarting specific plans of an international terrorist or a drug trafficker, those strategies would surely fail, and the public's health and safety would be compromised as a result. Withholding information might also be necessary to avoid public panic. While such cases are rare, they do occur occasionally. For example, during the first few hours of the new millennium the U.S. Pentagon's missile defense system experienced a Y2K- related malfunction. This fact was withheld from the public until later in the day, once the problem had been solved; and legitimately so, since immediate disclosure would have served no useful purpose and might even have resulted in mass hysteria.

Having recognized that withholding information from the public is often necessary to serve the interests of that public, legitimate political leadership nevertheless requires forthrightness with the citizenry as to the leader's motives and agenda. History informs us that would-be leaders who lack such forthrightness are the same ones who seize and maintain power either by brute force or by demagoguery--that is, by deceiving and manipulating the citizenry. Paragons such as Genghis Khan and Hitler, respectively, come immediately to mind. Any democratic society should of course abhor demagoguery, which operates against the democratic principle of government by the people. Consider also less egregious examples, such as President Nixon's withholding of information about his active role in the Watergate cover-up. His behavior demonstrated a concern for self- interest above the broader interests of the democratic system that granted his political authority in the first place.

In sum, the game of politics calls for a certain amount of disingenuousness and lack of forthrightness that we might otherwise characterize as dishonesty. And such behavior is a necessary means to the final objective of effective political leadership. Nevertheless, in any democracy a leader who relies chiefly on deception and secrecy to preserve that leadership, to advance a private agenda, or to conceal selfish motives, betrays the democracy-and ends up forfeiting the political game.

GRE写作官方题库高频ARGUMENT题目满分范文分享： budgetary priority given to public education

GRE作文官方题库ARGUMENT题目：

The following appeared in a letter to the editor of city-run local newspaper:

"In our region of Trillura, the majority of money spent on the schools that most students attend—the city-run public schools—comes from taxes that each city government collects. The region's cities differ, however, in the budgetary priority they give to public education. For example, both as a proportion of its overall tax revenues and in absolute terms, Parson City has recently spent almost twice as much per year as Blue City has for its public schools—even though both cities have about the same number of residents. Clearly, Parson City residents place a higher value on providing a good education in public schools than Blue City residents do."

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

【满分范文赏析】

This argument concludes that Parson City residents value public-school education more highly than Blue City residents do. To justify this conclusion the argument points out that in both cities the majority of funds for public schools comes from taxes, and that Blue City budgets only half as much money per year for its public schools as Parson City, even though the population in both cities is about the same. The argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which, considered together, render the argument wholly unconvincing.

【本段结构】

本文采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即C—A—F的开头结构。本段首先概括原文的Conclusion，之后简要提及原文为支持其结论所引用的一系列Assumption及细节，最后给出开头段到正文段的过渡句，指出原文的Flaw，即这些Assumption无法让原文逻辑上没有问题。

【本段功能】

作为Argument开头段，本段具体功能就在于发起攻击并概括原文的结论，即Parson城市的居民比Blue城市的居民对公立学校更加看重。本段接下来提到了原文中为支持之前的Conclusion所提供的证据，即每年Blue城市从税收中给予当地公立学校的资金仅仅是Parson城市的一半。文章提及这些信息，为是在正文段中对这些Assumption即将进行的具体攻击做铺垫。

One such assumption is that the total budget for the two cities is approximately the same. It is entirely possible that Blue City's total budget is no more than half that of Parson City. If so, that would account for the discrepancy in the allocation of funds and could not be understood as an indicator that one city cares more or less about education. Even if Parson City devotes a greater percentage of its budget each year for its schools rather than amount of money, the argument relies on the additional assumption that this percentage is a reliable indicator of the value residents place on public-school education. Yet, it is entirely possible, for example, that Blue City's schools are already well funded, or that Blue City has some other, extremely urgent problem which requires additional funding despite a high level of concern among its residents about its public schools. Without clear evidence regarding the circumstances that the two city's face, any comparative analysis is not useful.

【本段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第一个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。

【本段功能】

作为正文第一段，本段攻击原文所犯的第一个重要逻辑错误——样本类错误。原文当中假设，Parson城市和Blue城市的每年总预算是相同的。但实际上可能情况并非如此。有可能Blue城市用于公立学校的这部分资金所占的总预算的比例是要高于Parson城市的，也就是说Blue城市的居民比Parson更关心公立学校的教育。因此在没有考虑这些样本因素的情况下，原文简单地将Parson和Blue的资金分配情况进行比较是不合理的。

Finally, although the argument states that in both cities the majority of money spent on public schools comes from taxes, perhaps the actual percentage is smaller in Blue City than in Parson City, and other such funds come from residents' donations, earmarked for public education. Thus it is possible that Blue City residents donate more money for public-school education than Parson City residents do. If so, this possibility further weakens the argument.

【本段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第三个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。

【本段功能】

作为正文第三段，本段攻击原文所犯的第三个重要逻辑错误——类比类错误。原文假设，仅仅从税收资金对公立学校的分配比例和具体数额就能得知当地居民对公立学校的关心程度的差异。但实际上这样的笼统的类比忽略了能够产生类似结果的其他因素。所以，原文的这个观点是不能让人确信的。

怎样用GRE作文例子相关文章：

1.托福综合写作和独立写作异同

2.带你了解托福与雅思的区别