qwe1__rty2 发表于 2013-2-12 12:07 static/image/common/back.gif
请问你每一类写了多少篇？
我是说大分类。即历史，教育，科学，政治。如此这般。不是小分类。小分类要是各写一篇会写死的。。。
感谢楼主的推荐，cs的AW拿到5不容易啊。去看看那本书，对了楼主能不能介绍下句式语言和词汇怎么提高，我目前在看新4然后练笔的时候尽量模仿做过的阅读的句子用法
我看了下拯救我的新GRE Issue里面说的比较宽泛。另外好像还有一些素材，关于政治运动，女性题材，100位著名作家之类的书
不知道楼主看了没有？
Any references?
过来怒顶版主哈~~
我写GRE的硬伤就是打字太慢。。基本只能写别人的三分之二。。
第四篇，科学篇。
Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.
Should governments stop financing scientific researches with unclear results? I fundamentally disagree with such a recommendation. At first blush it looks a very practical one because it makes sense for governments not to waste taxpayers’ money on worthless scientific researches. However, I believe that governments cannot fairly judge whether a scientific research is beneficial, due to the nature of scientific research and potential long-term benefits of theoretical researches.
The primary problem of this recommendation is that it is paradoxical in its nature: scientific research is to explore the unpredictable in search of true answers to our questions; therefore no one can firmly determine its consequences before it is conducted. And yet the recommendation is illogically assuming that governments are able to know whether a scientific research is worthwhile beforehand. Consider the first digital computer, ENIAC, which was designed and constructed by two researchers from University of Pennsylvania. It was expensive and bulky; yet it can only perform some basic algorithmic operations very slowly. Its invention and research seemed to fit the criteria of “having unclear consequences”; yet thanks to the US Army who did not stop financing this project, we today can enjoy the convenience of modern computers which evolved from this precedent. The example illustrates that no one, including the governments, can accurately predict whether a researched technology has any profound impacts on society in the future. This suggests that the above recommendation is impractical and may force governments to make unfair judgments on scientific researches which seem not to have very clear objectives.
Secondly, theoretical scientific research might be severely impacted if governments stop funding, simply because they do not see any immediate or obvious benefits. Theoretical scientific research is not concerned with solving practical problems with immediate interests. But it provides insights into phenomena and builds knowledge frontier; its outcomes are made used by applied scientific research. There are many examples: Albeit Einstein’s general relativity, Stephen Hawking’s Black Hole theory, Alan Turing’s Turing Machine, and etc... These scientific researches might seem to serve only one unclear purpose – exploring the uncharted—at least during the time when they were still in gestation. But one could not deny the great benefits they brought to their respective area of subject. If governments are to stop financing these scientific researches, the majority of theoretical scientific researches, which might or might not bring potential benefits, would be killed in embryo.
However, given the limited economic resources, governments need to allocate more funding to those scientific researches which serve more urgent and more immediate social problems. This inevitably would diminish funding for some other researches which do not have clear consequences. But it makes sense. If there was a severe epidemic sweeping through the globe causing millions to die, shouldn’t governments allocate most of its research resources to those biologists who focus on finding out the cures? Admittedly, research funding should be always allocated accordingly by weighing against more pressing social problems; this is one of the responsibilities of governments.
In the final analysis, considering that scientific research is meant to discover the unknown results, and that theoretical research might not serve immediate benefits, it is entirely possible that governments cannot make fair judgements on whether a scientific research is worth the expense. Although sometimes governments need adjust their research funding allocation accordingly, given the limited economic resources, in overall the recommendation is too absolutistic.
┊奇幻银河﹎ 发表于 2013-2-14 22:58 static/image/common/back.gif
过来怒顶版主哈~~
我写GRE的硬伤就是打字太慢。。基本只能写别人的三分之二。。
慢慢来。多练习打英文字，可以培养速度。建议上一些英文论坛跟人argue。
如果实在太慢了，就不要写三个points。宁愿花多点时间好好illustrate two points，会让人觉得你每个idea都论证得很饱满。而不是有很多idea但每个都是走马观花。
crazyrobin 发表于 2013-2-12 21:31 static/image/common/back.gif
我看了下拯救我的新GRE Issue里面说的比较宽泛。另外好像还有一些素材，关于政治运动，女性题材，100位著名 ...
你说的我好像有瞟了几眼，但没细看。
那本书确实比较宽泛。所以要我们读者自己去学会取其中对我们有用的部分。就像字典一样，我们没时间和精力整个读完。但可以挑里面你个人觉得比较容易记的部分去看。
kekele007 发表于 2013-2-12 19:38 static/image/common/back.gif
感谢楼主的推荐，cs的AW拿到5不容易啊。去看看那本书，对了楼主能不能介绍下句式语言和词汇怎么提高，我目前 ...
如果是verbal的句式语言和词汇，那当然是越千奇百怪越好。
但是在写analytical writing，我比较推荐用简单直接的语言，表达复杂的思想。平时看一些英文的新闻。仔细看作者表达的方式。然后用自己的语言表达出来。看看自己写的东西是不是看起来很直接很好懂，同时又能表达出原文的意思。
verbal里面很多倒装句，有时候ETS会故意把原文搞复杂来考你。如果你的英文造诣很高，当然可以用到writing去。不过如果不行，就会弄巧成拙。所以我建议用简单句子、简单词汇，加以适当的、可以控制的复杂度，去写analytical writing.
lz可以再说说怎么准备argument吗？我一直感觉argue比issue还难···
谢谢啦
总是能发现惊喜，牛人总是很多，谢了，最近都写的累了。。。
楼主，我还等着你的第五篇呢~
楼主我有个问题，你教育篇罗列的那几个题目后面的小括号里有的写recommendation，有的写policy，还有claim什么的是什么意思？我看来都是recommendation啊
erencie 发表于 2013-2-15 17:16 static/image/common/back.gif
如果是verbal的句式语言和词汇，那当然是越千奇百怪越好。
但是在写analytical writing，我比较推荐用 ...
对呀~~~LZargument是怎么准备的呀？我比较有疑问argument到底应该反驳大的premises 推到到conclusion有什么问题，还是每个premises自己里面有什么问题。。。
细细看过了，真的很好，期待第五篇！