GRE作文3.5分代表什么水平
關(guān)于GRE寫(xiě)作部分，分?jǐn)?shù)的高低對(duì)于我們的申請(qǐng)也有一定的影響。 那么具體的GRE寫(xiě)作的各個(gè)分?jǐn)?shù)所代表的水平是怎樣的?GRE寫(xiě)作3.5分是什么水平?下面小編為大家整理了詳細(xì)的內(nèi)容，供大家參考，希望對(duì)大家的備考有更好地幫助。
GRE作文3.5分代表什么水平
適用于申請(qǐng)除法律、商科和醫(yī)學(xué)專業(yè)外的各專業(yè)研究生院; 新GRE考試語(yǔ)文(170滿分)和數(shù)學(xué)(170滿分)及分析性寫(xiě)作(6分); 語(yǔ)文和數(shù)學(xué)兩個(gè)科目成績(jī)區(qū)間均為130分-170分，即單科全部題目錯(cuò)誤130分，全部題目正確170分。在分析性寫(xiě)作科目中，考生須完成Issue和Argument共兩篇寫(xiě)作，每篇寫(xiě)作單獨(dú)計(jì)0-6分，最后取均值作為該科目的分?jǐn)?shù)，準(zhǔn)確到0.5。gre寫(xiě)作3.5分是一個(gè)比較低的成績(jī)。
很多中國(guó)考生的GRE寫(xiě)作分?jǐn)?shù)總是在3—3.5分徘徊，4分都很難突破。大多數(shù)考生寫(xiě)gre作文存在的原因有：
跟風(fēng)，我們知道GRE寫(xiě)作有給定的題庫(kù)，這給考生帶來(lái)了方便，同時(shí)也帶來(lái)了隱藏的弊端。由于題庫(kù)的確定，高頻，模板，例證，范文，大量資料充斥在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上并且被專業(yè)人士和機(jī)構(gòu)總結(jié)印刷成冊(cè)。有了這些資料的輔導(dǎo)，考生只需在考前花上一段時(shí)間復(fù)習(xí)即可得到申請(qǐng)夠用的成績(jī)。同時(shí)，這也帶來(lái)了一個(gè)問(wèn)題，大家用的資料都是一樣的，寫(xiě)作水平差距也不是很大，判卷老師無(wú)法辨別出作文的優(yōu)劣程度，只好給出安全分?jǐn)?shù)。
GRE寫(xiě)作滿分范文1
"Both the development of technological tools and the uses to which humanity has put them have created modern civilizations in which loneliness is ever increasing."
This statement is stating. The more advance in tecnology that society becomes, the more we depend on technology to live our everyday lives. Society as a whole will out do daily tasks and depend more on machines and computers to accomplish those tasks for them. For example; I was told that the younger generations use caclators in classes on a everday level. We counld'nt do that. We had to resolve a problem on our own. Because caculators are being used, math problems are being adjusted around the caculators. If I didnt know how to use a caculator today then I most likely woulnd't know how to attempt to tackle the math of today. Computers of today are another example. Writing a essay took a lot of thought and hard work in past. Today, I can type some words in the computer and that computer will spell, make grammer correction, and dictate a right form to use in my essay. In the past we had to all these things on our own. I'm not putting down modern technology totally. I just want to state that if we take away people's ability to think then we will slowly loose our ability to function with out modern technology.
Comments:
This response is fundamentally deficient because it does not discuss the issue. Instead, it briefly discusses the drawbacks of specific types of technology (e.g., calculators and computers) in terms of the effect they have on an individual's ability to function without them.
Furthermore, the awkward and imprecise phrasing often interferes with meaning (e.g., "Society as a whole will out do daily tasks???").
GRE寫(xiě)作滿分范文2
"Our declining environment may bring the people of the world together as no politician, philosopher, or war ever could. Environmental problems are global in scope and respect no nation's boundaries. Therefore, people are faced with the choice of unity and cooperation on the one hand or disunity and a common tragedy on the other."
Cooperation---or Tragedy?
The solution to the world's growing environmental problems may have to wait awhile. It has been said that "environmental problems are global and respect no nation's boundaries." Unfortunately, pollution and its consequences still fall to large measure on those least likely to do anything about it: poor countries willing to sacrifice anything in order to sit at the table with the world's wealthy.
As far as the industrialized nations of the world are concerned, the world is a big place. Environmental destruction taking place outside their borders may sometimes be fodder for government pronouncements of concern, but few concrete actions. Deforestation of the Amazon, for instance, is of vital concern to all those who wish to continue breathing. But the only effective deterrent to this activity, the restriction of international aid money to those countries showing net deforestation, has been stalled in the United Nations by those unwilling to "interfere" in the internal politics of other nations.
Because of the differential impact of polluting activities around the world, and even in different regions of a single country, many governments will undoubtedly continue to promulgate only modest environmental regulations. Costs to polluting companies will continue to carry as much weight as the benefit of a pollution-free environment. Particularly in the current political climate of the United States, the well-documented expense of today's pollution-control measures will be stacked against the unknown long-term effects of polluting actitivities. "Why should I spend millions of dollars a year, which causes me to have to raise the cost of my goods or eliminate jobs, if no one really knows if air pollution is all that harmful? Show me the proof, " an air polluting company may demand.
Realistically, it won't be until critical mass is achieved that the hoped for "choice of unity and cooperation" will be a viable one. Only when the earth as a whole is so polluted that life itself becomes increasingly difficult for a majority of the world's people will there likely be the political will to force global environmental laws on governments worldwide. But the optimists (read: environmental activists) among us continue to believe that the world can be shown the error of its ways. They continue to point out that the sky is probably falling--or at least developing a big hole. The world, as a whole, ignores them.
One would hope, however, that governments, perhaps through a strengthened U.N., could somehow be forced to realize that when the Earth reaches the critical mass of pollution, it may be too late to do anything about it. That would be a "common tragedy" indeed.
Comments:
This excellent response displays an in-depth analysis of the issue, conveyed through the skillful use of language.
While acknowledging that environmental problems are serious and of global dimensions, the discussion explores the complexity of international cooperation. Such cooperation, the paper argues, runs into a variety of problems, and the writer offers persuasive examples to support that point:
-- the unwillingness of nations to "interfere" with other nations through
political measures such as restriction of foreign aid
-- inadequate environmental regulations, which are caused both by "the
differential impact of polluting activities" between countries and
regions and by the difficulty of comparing the "long-term effects of
polluting actitivities" with the more easily documented, short-term
costs of reducing pollution.
The paper distinguishes itself in part by its excellent organization. The first paragraph analyzes the claim and announces the writer's position; the second and third paragraphs provide clear examples supporting that position. The skillful use of a quotation from a business person vividly illustrates the economic impact of pollution controls. The last two paragraphs bring a sense of closure to the essay by continuing the theme announced in the first paragraph -- that cooperation must wait until more dire circumstances produce the political will necessary to reduce pollution.
Transitional phrases -- "because," "however," "for instance" -- help guide the reader through the argument. Also, effective sentence variety and the use of precise vocabulary help clarify meaning and confirm the score of 6.
GRE寫(xiě)作滿分范文3
"Our declining environment may bring the people of the world together as no politician, philosopher, or war ever could. Environmental problems are global in scope and respect no nation's boundaries. Therefore, people are faced with the choice of unity and cooperation on the one hand or disunity and a common tragedy on the other."
At no other time then in our present time has the need for unity and togetherness been more necessary to the inhabitants on our planet. For many decades the motto has been one of waste and denial. The world is in a race - racing to become number one - racing to destroy the earth. Traditions of protecting the earth have been abandoned as the need to satisfy infantile needs and desires wins out over the more philosophical desires of thought and meaning. Unfortunately many do not see the need for reforms in actions and thought; people are living for today and not tomorrow. Those that can believe in a future, and exhibit a desire to make a difference in this future must find a way to influence the remaining masses, and often it seems that the world simply refused to listen or learn from its past mistakes.
Those that answer this calling will not do so for notiority, but instead for their beliefs that they can make a difference. They will need to be of strong heart, body, soul, and beliefs. Understanding the need for an overhaul in our system in the rampant abuses is the first step to obtaining advancement in the struggle to bring the world together in a way that will benefit mankind today and tomorrow.
For too many years American's have persuaded themselves that the envirnoment was in no danger. Every year laws have been passed to protect our land, animals, and even our people. More often than not there are loopholes in these laws, allowing the environment to remain in peril. It seems that we often forget that we are not the only ones on earth. We are only a small percentage, and much too often our actions have a great effect on those that must subsist on this earth as well. One threatening example of this is the depletion of the rain forests in the Central and South Americas. It seems difficult for Americans to understand how these people can destroy their natural landscapes. Not only is the landscaped destroyed and the invaluable plants and animal life are also destroyed, and these can never be recovered. Americans express their annoyance at such practices, failing to see that we as consumers are one of the main causes of such actions. As a consumer society we depend on wood and other materials from these areas. Unfortunately these areas are nothing like what we see at home, instead it is a world of unimaginable poverty and harshness. In these areas where poverty is so prevalent often the only means of survival is found through the clearing of the precious rain forest for farm land. Certainly the fact that these people are farming in order to maintain their survival is important and can not be over looked. Yet, in most cases the farming is not done as a means of raising food and livestock for their own uses. This land is usually used to grow food for other countries such as America. This scenario depicts the wickedness that has become of our world. The first world nations are destroying the second and third world nations in order to fuel our excessive desires.
The world must find a way to come together so that there will be a tomorrow for everyone. New legislation must be passed that protects not only the environment of America, but the environments of other countries. Big business must also realize that they can no longer use dirty legislation and kickbacks to continue to pollute the earth.
Another important aspect that people must learn is that if we cannot learn to recycle and reduce waste, one day we will run out of dumping ground. It is frightening to think that this is what it will to take to make most people realize that actions must be taken to clean up our earth. It seems that we will only be able to come together when there is not other alternative. Perhaps the must unfathomable thought is, what happens if people do not unite together now to protect our environment. It can only seem that we will once again be threatened with war as we fight each other to death over the last precious miles of land and food. Civilization will have come full circle; all of our technological and scientific advances will mean nothing if the earth is destroyed and mankind subsequently wiped out with it
Comments:
This is a generally well-developed response in which the writer examines the complexities of the issue and explains ideas clearly through good control of the elements of effective writing.
The writer strongly agrees with the topic's claim and uses the first paragraph to expand on the idea that environmental problems imperil the earth. These problems, according to the writer, derive from people's lack of maturity ("infantile needs and desires") and lack of foresight ("people are living for today and not tomorrow.")
The third paragraph provides a highly relevant example of the complexities involved in the issue, showing how damage to the rainforest can be attributed both to poverty in Latin America and to the voracious appetite of the wealthy North American "consumer society." From here the writer returns to the focus on planning for "tomorrow" and proposes a specific remedy ("New legislation must be passed?") The discussion closes with a passionate description of a negative scenario for the future.
The response is well organized but, unlike a 6 paper, does not sustain a tight focus. Although the example of the rain forest degradation is highly relevant and fully developed, many of the reasons and assertions receive only cursory development or explanation ("new legislation must be passed? It can only seem that we will once again be threatened with war?").
The sentence structure in the essay is often nicely varied but at other times is choppy ("This land is?" "This scenario depicts?" "The first world nations?") Thus, the connection between ideas is also choppy at times.
The vocabulary is generally well chosen, with words such as "depletion," "unfathomable," and "subsequently." However, the phrasing is at times imprecise, as in these examples: "We are only a small percentage," and "At no other time then in our present time has the need??? been more necessary?" Although these problems keep the paper out of the 6 category, it is nevertheless a strong response to the topic.
GRE作文3.5分代表什么水平相關(guān)文章：
★ 想申請(qǐng)Top30,GRE作文成績(jī)到底多少分才夠
GRE作文3.5分代表什么水平
