GRE寫作評(píng)分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)及分?jǐn)?shù)權(quán)重細(xì)節(jié)解讀

千里之行，始于第2頁(yè)/共2頁(yè)精品文檔推薦GRE寫作評(píng)分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)及分?jǐn)?shù)權(quán)重細(xì)節(jié)解讀許多考生對(duì)于新GRE寫作兩個(gè)部分的計(jì)分方式不是非常了解，因此在備考中也很簡(jiǎn)單搞錯(cuò)學(xué)習(xí)重點(diǎn)，缺乏足夠的針對(duì)性。下面我就和大家共享GRE寫作評(píng)分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)及ISSUE/ARGUMENT分?jǐn)?shù)權(quán)重細(xì)節(jié)解讀，來(lái)觀賞一下吧。

GRE寫作評(píng)分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)及ISSUE/ARGUMENT分?jǐn)?shù)權(quán)重細(xì)節(jié)解讀

GRE寫作算分基本公式介紹

新GRE寫作要求考生在30分鐘+30分鐘內(nèi)分別完成兩篇文章，它是US全部作文考試中時(shí)間最長(zhǎng)而質(zhì)量要求最高的一類作文考試。GRE寫作的記分方式是這樣的，兩篇作文總分都是六分，計(jì)算公式為你的得分=(Issue的得分+Argument的得分)/2，最終的計(jì)分是以0.5分為一個(gè)格。

GRE寫作不同題型要求簡(jiǎn)介

1.Issuetask(30min)，要求依據(jù)所給題目，完成一篇表明立場(chǎng)的規(guī)律立論文。

2.Argumenttask(30min)，要求考生分析所給題目，完成一篇駁論文，指出并且有力的駁斥題目中的主要規(guī)律錯(cuò)誤。

GRE作文兩篇文章分?jǐn)?shù)權(quán)重分析

首先GRE寫作兩個(gè)部分在總分中的權(quán)重是一樣的。新GRE作文中有兩個(gè)項(xiàng)目，最終出的GRE作文分?jǐn)?shù)是一個(gè)，所以如何進(jìn)行GRE作文算分呢?由于AA的寫作不牽涉自己觀點(diǎn)的綻開(kāi)，只須指出規(guī)律上的漏洞，因此在經(jīng)過(guò)訓(xùn)練以后，寫起來(lái)并不困難;而AI的寫作需要自己綻開(kāi)自己設(shè)立的觀點(diǎn)，不但需要規(guī)律上的洞察力量，還需要論證觀點(diǎn)的力量，語(yǔ)言組織的力量，因此對(duì)于中國(guó)考生來(lái)講比較困難，難以短期內(nèi)有較大提高。

但是這兩個(gè)部分在總分中的權(quán)重是一樣的，因此考生的策略應(yīng)當(dāng)是盡量提高AI部分的寫作力量而力保AA部分滿分(或高分)。由于假如AA部分滿分的話，AI部分只需爭(zhēng)取在4分以上就可以保證整體作文分?jǐn)?shù)在5分以上。

ETS寫作評(píng)分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)概述

參照ETS評(píng)過(guò)分的范文，我們不難發(fā)覺(jué)：無(wú)論是ISSUE還是ARGUMENT在評(píng)分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)上都有共同之處。

1.觀點(diǎn)要有深度，論證要有說(shuō)服力;

2.組織要有條理，表達(dá)清楚精確;

3.語(yǔ)言流利，句式簡(jiǎn)單，詞匯豐富。

這三條分別說(shuō)的是行文的“思想性”、“結(jié)構(gòu)性”和“表達(dá)性”，眾多高分作文的考生大凡都在這三個(gè)方面做得很好，我們理所當(dāng)然也要從這里入手，實(shí)行“各個(gè)擊破”的方法解剖GRE作文的本質(zhì)，從而得到一個(gè)抱負(fù)分?jǐn)?shù)。

GRE寫作范文

Wisdomisrightfullyattributednottopeoplewhoknowwhattolookforinlifebuttopeoplewhoknowwhattooverlook.

Everyonecanagreewiththisissueornot.Ithinkeveryonecanhaveargumentstosupportitandargumentstonotsupportit.Itsoneofthatissuethatisnottrueforeveryone.Ithinkifyouknowwhattolookforinyourlifemaybeallyoureffortscanbeveryconcentratedoncertainthingswiththeresultofobtainwhatyouplannedtohaveinyourlife,withtheresultofbeingsatisfiedmorethanpeoplewhoaskthemselvesanykindofquestionspriortodoinganythingorpriortothinkaboutanything.Thesefactorssummarizetodisplaytruthabouttheissueandthediscussion.Peoplecandisagreeiftheychooseit.Nowthequestioniswisdombelongstothosewhoknowwhattolookforortothosewhoknowwhattooverlookandinthisbehaviortheycantouchorstopthewidomofotherpeople?

Comments:

Thisresponsepresentsafundamentallydeficientdiscussionoftheissue.

Thefirstportionoftheresponse,whilereferringtothisissue,neverclearlyidentifiestheissueand,instead,containsstatementsthatcouldbeattributedtoanynumberoftopics.Assuch,thereislittleevidenceoftheabilitytoorganizeanddevelopacoherentanalysisofthestatedclaim.Thefinalstatementessentiallyrephrasesthetopicasaquestionandseemstotrytointerpretitsmeaning,but--withoutanexplanation--theendingmerelyaddstotheoverallconfusion.

Thesevereandpersistenterrorsinlanguageandsentencestructureaddtotheoverallincoherenceandthescoreof1.

GRE寫作滿分范文

Thefollowingappearedasalettertotheeditorofalocalnewspaper.

Fiveyearsago,weresidentsofMorgantonvotedtokeepthepubliclyownedpieceoflandknownasScottWoodsinanatural,undevelopedstate.Ourthinkingwasthat,ifnoshoppingcentersorhouseswerebuiltthere,ScottWoodswouldcontinuetobenefitourcommunityasanaturalparkland.Butnowthatourtownplanningcommitteewantstopurchasethelandandbuildaschoolthere,weshouldreconsiderthisissue.Ifthelandbecomesaschoolsite,noshoppingcentersorhousescanbebuiltthere,andsubstantialacreagewouldprobablybedevotedtoathleticfields.Therewouldbenobetteruseoflandinourcommunitythanthis,sincealargemajorityofourchildrenparticipateinsports,andScottWoodswouldcontinuetobenefitourcommunityasnaturalparkland.

Theauthorsargumentisweak.ThoughhebelievesScottWoodsbenefitsthecommunityasanundevelopedpark,healsothinksaschoolshouldbebuiltonit.Obviouslytheauthorisnotawareofthedevelopmentthatcomeswithbuildingaschoolbesidesthefacilitiesdevotedtolearningorsports.Hedoesnotrealizethatparkinglotswilltakeupasubstantialareaofproperty,especiallyiftheschoolproposedisahighschool.Wearenotgiventhisinformation,northesizeofthestudentbodythatwillbeattending,northepopulationofthecityitself,soitisunclearwhetherthedamagewillbegreatormarginal.Forabetterargument,theauthorshouldconsiderquestionslikewhatsortofnaturalresourcesarepresentonthelandthatwillnotremainoncetheschoolisbuilt?Arethereendangeredspecieswhosehomeswillbelost?Andwhataboutdiggingupthelandforwaterlines?ItisdoubtfulwhethertheintegrityofScottWoodsasnaturalparklandcanbemaintainedoncethelandhasbeendeveloped.Itistruethataschoolwouldprobablynotcauseasmuchdamageasashoppingcenterorhousingdevelopment,buttheauthormustconsiderwhetherthecostsincurredinlosingthepark-likeaspectsofthepropertyareworthdevelopingit,whentherecouldbeanother,moresuitablesite.Heshouldalsoconsiderhowthecitywillpayfortheproperty,whethertaxeswillberaisedtocompensatefortheexpenseorwhetherashoppingcenterwillbebuiltsomewhereelsetoraisefunds.Hehasnotgivenanystrongreasonsfortheideaofbuildingaschool,includingwhatkindoflandthepropertyis,whetheritisswamplandthatwillhavetobedrainedoranarid,scrubbylotthatwillneedextensivemaintenancetokeepuptheathleticgreens.Theauthorshouldalsoconsidertheopposition,suchasthepeoplewithoutchildrenwhohavenointerestinmoreathleticfields.Hemustdoabetterjobofpresentinghiscase,addressingeachpointnamedabove,forifthelandisasmuchapopularcommunityresourceasheimplies,hewillfaceatoughtimegainingalliestochangeaparktoaschool.

Comments:

Afterdescribingtheargumentasweak,thisstrongresponsegoesstraighttotheheartofthematter:buildingaschoolisnot(astheargumentseemstoassume)innocuous;rather,itinvolvessubstantialdevelopment.Theessayidentifiesseveralreasonstosupportthiscritique.Thewriterthenpointstotheimportantquestionsthatmustbeansweredbeforeacceptingtheproposal.Theseaddress

--thecostsversusthebenefitsofdevelopingScottWoods

--theimpactofdevelopmentonScottWoods

--thepossibilityofanother,