GRE作文6分教学博客

epicureanUID: 3309158

向老师报告喜讯！ 上周考试成绩出来了，AW竟然4.5！虽然当天感觉argument写得很顺，特别注意了每一段都紧扣instruction，内容语言都还好所以5分应该没问题。但是那天的issue太渣了，本来是打算按照1+3的结构来，后来时间实在不够就改成了1+2...即使这样第二部分还是没写完，草草收尾最后一句也没来得及敲完。。。本来以为就算Argument再高也不会超过3.5的， 也不知道ets怎么评分的。

不过真的很感谢这个帖子！我这学期超级忙，又没有安排好时间。可能因为报了两场考试的缘故，第一次考试没有特别用心准备，考前一周才开始准备作文。我仔细学习了博客里的理论部分，又看了几篇范文，感觉思路清晰了不少，按照这个方法自己写了几篇提纲和作文。在写作的过程中发现自己的短板: 例子的积累不够（这个在写作的过程中很费时，每次想例子要想好久...），以及段内逻辑不够清晰，表述不够精炼，用词不丰富（虽然背了很多GRE单词，但发现很多都不能灵活运用到作文中去）——这些似乎都不是几天内能迅速提升的。于是，我就放弃提高它们，把精力用在仔细体会不同instruction之间有什么区别，怎样避免跑题，以及看老师的范文和熟悉题库的题目。

虽然准备很有限，但我还是明显察觉到了自己的进步，当然这次作文可能运气也不错。我在接下来的几周里会作更加充分的准备，提纲+作文，同时也要就自己的弱点进行针对性的训练，希望下次还有进步。再次感谢老师的博客，给了我很多帮助和启发！

tesolchinaUID: 2191404

ssphia 发表于 2015-10-26 17:15
刚看了老师的范文，觉得我第一个论点说的也是我们不能保证未来哪些职业是好的，这句话改成‘Schools shou ...

argument 我全部写了范文或提纲 你自己比对一下 有具体问题再提出来吧

tesolchinaUID: 2191404

epicurean 发表于 2015-10-26 22:21
向老师报告喜讯！ 上周考试成绩出来了，AW竟然4.5！虽然当天感觉argument写得很顺，特别注意了每一段都紧扣 ...

恭喜 已收录到首页高分名单 谢谢

CandyisthebestUID: 3626719

issue 10) Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.


Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.


It goes without saying that, with the advance of industry and technology, human beings have compelling -in many cases catastrophic - impacts on nature. In order to preserve our planet, some people urge that nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas. Nevertheless, the identity of “nations” in the statement is very vague, from my perspective, countries under poor financial condition should not pass such laws, nor do countries with limited land. On the other hand, affluent countries are supposed to conserve rather than preserve remaining wilderness areas so as to balance between economical benefits and environment protection.  

Developing countries whose nations are under horrible threats should not preserve all wilderness areas. In these countries, people are struggling to make both ends meet so I believe the most salient problem the government should solve is to improve the life standards of the people. For instant, the government could permit to build more factories so as to provide more job opportunities. Some people may argue that, the preservation of industrial land does good to future generation, however, it is ironic that this “sustainable ” effort only entices starving contemporary generation into famine.

It is also counterproductive to implement preservation policies in countries or areas lack of natural resources. Take Hong Kong as a case in point. Well-known as the highest house prices all over the world, Hong Kong is undergoing the grudge of its people all the time. It is not practical to preserve natural landscapes at the expense of urbane houses and infrastructures. Plus, not only is there not enough room for living people, but also not enough graveyards for dead bodies, let alone the preservation of wilderness areas for other creatures. From the other point of view, if the government passes laws to preserve natural areas against people’s will, the economic will shrink without doubt and more serious political riots will come into being.

When it comes to rich countries of ample natural resources, it is more sensible to reserve instead of preserving wild areas. There is a clear-cut difference between preservation and reservation. Preservation means keeping the original landscape unconditionally while reservation stands for using the natural resources wisely and sustainably. As far as I am concerned, I recommend the government go for the second choice. To illustrate, I can think of no better example than the Yellow Stone National Park, which is the paradigm of conservation. The most amazing of it is that, it maintains the untainted natural world as well as presents its beauty to the world. In addition, the tourism greatly blossoms local economics. In conclusion, the government could learn from the exemplary case to achieve both financial and environment-friendly goals.

To sum it up, poor countries and countries of scarce natural resources should not preserve wilderness areas because the nation’s well-being ought to be guaranteed in the first place whereas developed countries are supposed to take actions conserve rather than preserve natural lands in order to thrive the economics harmoniously.


希望得到老师的点评~~
谢谢！！

geomoUID: 3555205

王老师，刚查到分数了，很不理想，作文只有三分。看来必须重考了。
虽然心里很不爽，但知道这可能也是必然的结果，毕竟考前没有时间练了，只是把你博客里的范文看了看，掌握了个大概的意思。最大的原因还是功夫没有下到。
我写的时候其实自我感觉还好，两篇都写了四五百字左右，ISSUE写完还读了一遍，把一些TYPO和不妥的话改了一下，ARGUMENT总结部分最后一句话没有写完时间到了。总体的结构应该没有太大问题。我现在也有些迷惑，分数比我预期的低，我想着即便不到4分，怎么也应有3.5，看到结果还是有些傻眼。感觉自己可能写的时候没有找对ETS的点，所以才得此低分。看来下一步再考的话，还得好好研究研究ETS的思路。
ISSUE考的是科学家或研究者应该把研究重点放在造福最大多数的人上。我是按照分类的方法写的，纯粹的科学研究，比如数学家、天文学家等，研究的是一些纯粹的理论问题或者离普通人生活比较远的东西，所以不是聚焦于造福最大多数人的；一些从事社会科学研究的研究者，比如研究同性恋、少数族裔问题的研究者，其重点在解决这些少数群体的问题，而并非造福最大多数的人；而工程师，如建筑结构工程师，其所从事的研究是要造福最大多数的人，要研究房屋的结构、安全性等等。大概是这个意思吧。不知道是不是写跑了？
ARGUMENT写的是在小城市生活更健康更长寿的问题。我找的几个点是：1、L小城请病假的人少于M大城，并不能说明L小城的人更健康，可能L小城的人生活压力更大，公司管理更严格，没有时间请病假；可能M城的医疗服务更好，所以员工更愿意请假去看医生，而在L小城，医疗服务不方便，看病会花掉很多时间，所以小病什么的大家就不愿请假；2、L小城的人均医生比少于M大城，并不说明L小城的人更健康。可能M大城更重视人们的医疗和健康情况，所以会付更多的钱给医生，所以医生乐于在M大城工作；而L小城的人因为拥有较少的医生，可能会在未来更难看病，健康状况会更差；3、L小城的人均年龄高于M大城，并不能够说明L小城的人更长寿。可能L小城的生活环境不好，所以年轻人都去其他城市工作了，留在这个小城里的老人相对比较多，导致人均年龄较大。大概是这些吧，可能找得不够全面，或者论述得不好？
总之，对这个分数真的是好失望，下次再考，也得有好长的路要走啊

tesolchinaUID: 2191404

geomo 发表于 2015-10-27 10:31
王老师，刚查到分数了，很不理想，作文只有三分。看来必须重考了。
虽然心里很不爽，但知道这可能也是必然 ...

仅仅看你的描述 不觉得偏题 估计还是语言表达的问题

tesolchinaUID: 2191404

Candyisthebest 发表于 2015-10-27 09:56
issue 10) Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state ...

Nevertheless, the identity of “nations” in the statement is very vague, from my perspective, countries under poor financial condition should not pass such laws, nor do countries with limited land. On the other hand, affluent countries are supposed to conserve rather than preserve remaining wilderness areas so as to balance between economical benefits and environment protection.   

the identity of “nations” in the statement is very vague 什么意思
而且这里断句也有问题
估计考官看到这种句子就直接判3分了

affluent countries are supposed to 这里应该表明是你的观点
is supposed to一般用来描述大家都认同的规则 Chinese students are supposed to be good at math ...

语言表达不过关啊

tesolchinaUID: 2191404

偶尔会有同学找我点评习作。虽然最近在忙博士论文，真正有心学习和有潜力拿到高分的同学，我还是愿意指导的。对于那些直接发到版面上或者回复到我博客的习作，我只能抽空偶尔看看。要想获得我的更深入的指点，我觉得你需要从我的角度考虑问题。

首先，我建议你认真看我的博客，里面内容非常丰富，包括我的范文、提纲以及各种技巧。目前我需要将这些内容整理成书出版，因此很希望大家从考生的角度指出哪些内容有用、哪些地方需要改进。
其次，你应该多看我之前点评过的学生习作，尤其是那些已经拿到高分的同学。论坛的搜索功能会帮你找到那些帖子。
最后，我提出的一些想法比如https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1881747-1-1.html 你未必赞成，但希望你能关注并提出意见。

我的微信是tesolchina  有心的同学可以加我 我每天大约有1个多小时的时间在火车上 可以利用这些碎片时间讨论作文。

对于大多数同学来说，GRE作文是不值得投入这么多时间的，但是认真看过我的博客的同学应该不难发现，我的文章里有我的思想、理想和执着。如果我的博客里某些文字能打动你，或许我们可以聊聊。

triggerlinUID: 3568088

考前两周AW一筹莫展的时候发现了这个帖子。。。。希望还不晚。。。前两次作文都是3。。。
看了几篇博文 收获非常大 真真的被老师打动了
这两天就把您的博客看完顺便总结加练习。。。
我会努力的！

芊荨UID: 3016939

tesolchina 发表于 2015-1-2 22:44
The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station.
"Over the past yea ...

老师，我觉得最后一个论点不太恰当。题目中是建议通过加大天气和当地新闻的时长来吸引更多的观众，并没有提到观众量减少。所以我觉得换成“这个建议是否能吸引到更多的观众”会更好些。老师您觉得呢？

tesolchinaUID: 2191404

芊荨 发表于 2015-10-27 12:52
老师，我觉得最后一个论点不太恰当。题目中是建议通过加大天气和当地新闻的时长来吸引更多的观众，并没有 ...

The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station.
"Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this period, most of the complaints received from viewers were concerned with our station's coverage of weather and local news. In addition, local businesses that used to advertise during our late-night news program have canceled their advertising contracts with us. Therefore, in order to attract more viewers to our news programs and to avoid losing any further advertising revenues, we should expand our coverage of weather and local news on all our news programs."

in order to attract more viewers 这个暗示了观众人数也是一个问题？

tesolchinaUID: 2191404

突然发现issue 130和150竟然是完全一样的。
Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within the law, is to make as much money as possible.

Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.

这里和大家一起学习一下OG上的官方范文。

It is not uncommon for some to argue that, in the world in which we live, corporations have a responsibility to society and to the environment in which they operate. 第一句先概述其中一边的观点 Proponents of this view would argue that major environmental catastrophes (e.g., the oil spill in the Gulf) are key examples of the damage that can be wrought when corporations are allowed to operate unchecked. 然后引一个例子来解释这个观点 Yet within that very statement lies a contradiction that undermines this kind of thinking — it is necessary for outside forces to check the behaviour of corporations, because we do not expect corporations to behave in such a manner. 对这个观点进行批判指出其内在的矛盾 In fact, the expectation is simply that corporations will follow the law, and in the course of doing so, engage in every possible tactic to their advantage in the pursuit of more and greater profit. 提出自己的观点 To expect otherwise from corporations is to fail to understand their purpose and their very structure. 指出与自己观点相反的想法的不足之处  

不得不说这个开头是写得很漂亮的 先描述自己不同意的观点 为自己的论述设了一个靶子  然后指出其中的矛盾之处  
提出自己的观点时用了expectation这个词 这个词属于signalling noun 我的导师专门出过一本书讲这个  
Flowerdew, J., & Forest, R. (2015). Signalling nouns in English: A corpus-based discourse approach. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

先总结一个动作循环(move cycle)
1. 提出对方观点
2. 举例说明该观点
3. 指出这个观点内在的矛盾

说实话这样写是很难的 尤其是指出内在矛盾 因此我并不推荐

接下来的动作包括
4. 有矛盾提出自己的观点
5. 给反对自己的观点定性 指出为什么是错的  To expect otherwise from corporations is to fail to understand their purpose and their very structure

这里的第5步是值得学习的。也就是说我们不仅要学会提出自己的观点，还要能主动出击去攻击反对的意见。更重要的是，这里的攻击其实引用了新的概念即公司的purpose和structure。我觉得这里对公司理念的认识其实涉及到一些经济学的原理。公司制度的本质其实是将企业的所有权和经营权分开，让具备专业技能的经理来管理公司，而让拥有资本和投资眼光的人来做老板，这其实也是一种社会分工。

The corporation arose as a model of business in which capital could be raised through the contributions of stockholders; investors purchases shares in a company, and their money is then used as the operating capital for the company. 描述公司制度模型中投资人与公司的互动关系 Shareholders buy stock not because they are hoping to better make the world a better place or because they have a desire to improve the quality of life but because they expect to see a return in their investment in this company. 指出投资人的目的不是什么而是什么 The company may itself have generally altruistic goals (perhaps it is a think tank that advises the government on how to improve relations with the Middle East, or perhaps it is a company built around finding alternative forms of energy), but the immediate expectation of the investor is that he himself will see dividends, or profits, from the investment he has made. 先承认公司可能有无私的目的并举例说明 然后指出即时的预期是盈利 This is even more true in the case of companies that are purely profit driven and which do not have goals that are particularly directed toward social improvement—a description that applies to the vast majority of corporations. 强调大部分公司是纯粹逐利，实际上削弱了前面所承认的内容

这一段其实就是对上段结束部分的观点进行的演绎。学习这段范文要注意几点：
1. yes...but...模型 也可称为让步模型。作者先承认有些公司是有无私目标的并举例说明，然后转折指出作者所强调的点及公司其实是逐利的 这种让步模型可谓随处可见。前面的让步，甚至举例说明让步内容都只是铺垫，重点在后面。但是前面必须写，因为写了前面可以让读者觉得你考虑的比较周详不那么武断，同时也可以凑字数（呵呵呵）。

2. 限定情况讨论。其实分情况讨论是1+3模型的核心所在。尽管本文没有形成1+3的结构 但是这里 in the case of companies that are实际就是对要讨论的个案进行限制，指出某种具体的情况，这样一来作者提出的观点的适用范围就变得比较具体，也显得比较严谨。

Is it a bad thing to have a corporation negatively affect the environment (and by extentsion, its inhabitants)? 以问题形式提出本段重点-公司行为的外部性问题To pump noxious fumes into the atmosphere as a by-product of its manufacturing processes? 具体举例说明 Of course, and this is why agencies such as the EPA were established and why governments—federal, state, and local—are expected to monitor such companies to ensure that such practices fall within the boundaries of legal expectations. 跟进上面的例子，指出政府干预的必要性  Any and all corporations should be expected to temper their pursuit of profit with the necessity of following those safeguards that have been legislated as protections. 对上句的例子进行概括，指出一般性的原理 But the assumption that corporations have an inherent obligation or responsibility to go above and beyond that to actively PROMOTE the environment and the well-being of society is absurd. 回到本文的主题，重新强调作者的观点  

上段主要通过解释公司制度来指出公司逐利的本质，这段重点讨论公司恶行如何处理。这段的论述中也涉及到一个经济学的概念-外部性。所谓外部性，就是A的行为对B造成的影响，而B却不能把A怎么样。这样一来A的行为就得不到合理的反馈了，B要么收益要么受损，也就是正外部性或负外部性。生活中有很多这样的例子。比如汽车排出的尾气对路人乃至城市居民就是一种负外部性，而地铁站的修建对周边房价的刺激对于业主来说就是正外部性。解决外部性问题的方法包括政府的干预和对产权进行界定。比如政府可以向汽车司机征税来让他们为负外部性买单，这样他们释放尾气的量就能反映市场最优水平。比如香港的地铁可以以较低价格获得地铁站周边的土地从而补贴建设成本，这就是通过对产权的界定对正外部性的内化。

虽然原文作者并没有正式引出外部性的概念，但是理解这个概念能帮助我们更好的分析这里的问题。

学习这段话时我们还应该注意举例的技巧。我们都知道举例说明在论述中的重要性，但是很多同学写文章时举例说明的效果却不太好。这里的关键问题在于要弄清楚例子和道理之间的关系。其实举例的本质是一种实证主义的科学精神，也就是要用数据来支持理论。因此，举例之前首先要搞清楚你想说明什么道理。然后在举例之后，要解释为什么这个例子能说明这个道理。最后还要再强调一遍你要支持和论述的道理。所以说，举例说理其实包括几个步骤
1. 提出要说明的道理
2. 提出例子
3. 解释为什么这个例子能说明这个道理
4. 再说一遍这个道理

大家不妨对照这个步骤循环看看自己写的中间段是否做到这些动作。而范文的这一段，第一句是在一个抽象的层面讨论问题-公司对环境造成负面影响-第二句就是具体的例子汽车排放尾气。很明显后一句是前一句的具体例子。接下来的一句提到EPA实际上是在具体层面上的讨论，EPA就是具体的例子。而接下来的一句则是从这个具体例子中提炼出道理Any and all corporations should be expected to temper their pursuit of profit with the necessity of following those safeguards that have been legislated as protections。由此可见，举例说明需要我们在两个不同的层面上展开讨论，一个是道理（理论）的层面，一个是例子（数据）的层面。

Engaging in practices to adhere to legal expectations to protect society and the environment is costly to corporations. If the very purpose of a corporation is to generate profits, and the obligation to adhere to safety expectations established by law cuts into those profits, then to expect corporations to embrace such practices beyond what is required is to presume that they willingly engage in an inherently self- destructive process: the unnecessary lowering of profits. This is antithetical to the very concept of the corporation. Treehuggers everywhere should be pleased that environmental protections exist, but to expect corporations to “make the world a better place” is to embrace altruism to the point that it becomes delusion.

这一段延续上段的经济学分析，引入了一个新的概念-成本。其实政府处理外部性的主要手段就是将外部性内化，本来释放尾气是没有后果的，通过征税变为有一定的成本。而成本则会导致公司的盈利减少，这又回到了公司逐利的本质上来。因此这段的论述的核心还是公司的目的，并由此推导出超出政府要求的善行其实不符合逐利本质。讲完这个道理，作者还用antithetical这个词做了总结，并附上一个例子和对观点进行总结。最后一句也是可圈可点- to expect corporations to “make the world a better place” is to embrace altruism to the point that it becomes delusion和前面的To expect otherwise from corporations is to fail to understand their purpose and their very structure 有异曲同工之妙，都是对某个具体行为进行定性描述。

This is not to say that we should reject efforts to hold corporations accountable. In fact, the opposite is true — we should be vigilant with the business world and maintain our expectations that corporations do not make their profits at the EXPENSE of the well-being of society. But that role must be fulfilled by a watchdog, not the corporation itself, and those expectations must be imposed UPON the corporations, not expected FROM them.

最后一段的总结，通过对比将两种观点清晰的概述，我们是希望公司自觉履行社会责任，还是通过法治来迫使其不作恶。这里用到的模式是not ... but... 先否定某种读者可能的误解，然后再澄清作者的立场。

这篇文章的精彩之处不仅仅在于其行文与结构，更在于其思想。这里的思想就是对现实的敬畏和对法治的推崇。现实就是公司的本质在于逐利，而解决公司作恶的工具就是法律制度和政府的干预。好的制度把坏人变好，坏的制度把好人变坏，大概就是说的这个道理。也许懂得这个道理之后，再看谷歌的不作恶的口号，就显得有些图样图森破了。











  

ssphiaUID: 3461542

按照老师的提纲写了issue61，但是第一点不一样，麻烦老师点评一下。 另外打字快时拼写错误有点多，大家是怎么解决的？
61) People should undertake risky action only after they have carefully considered its consequences.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.

I am in favour of the claim that people should consider the consequences thoroughly before taking risky action. Because under the circumstance like adventure, if one is not fully prepared, one may get hurt or even worse, one will die. Also, when one is going to conduct some financial investments, one need to review its financial statements and use sophisticated models to calculate the risk, otherwise one will suffer great loss if the market change. However, the statement may not be true under emergency situation when people take risky action out of instinct. Outlined below is my explanation.

There is no doubt that adventures are well known for high risk, especially walking through the desert. Before setting out, you must bring maps,food, clothes, water and some devices can purify the water, medicines and other survival tools. If you underestimate the risk of desert, when you get lost, the charming desert will become fatal. Therefore, for most of the adventurers, they would have planned for a long time, considering every possible situation and danger and the according methods. Only when they feel the preparation can reduce the risk, they will start the journey.

It is also true that people need to assess the risk of the financial investments. Apparently, the financial market is mutable, especially the price of stock fluctuating every day. Without a comprehensive understanding of the stock, one may become impecunious the next day. Thus, you can find out the successful investors are always those who have reviewed the financial statements carefully and calculated the risk before investing.

Nevertheless, when confronted the emergency, it is hard to analyse the consequences because people take the risky action out of instinct. Being in danger, the risky action can help the human body to release endorphins which is helpful for people to perform physical act that are not possible under normal situation. Such action may save people's life.

In conclusion, it is indispensable to consider the consequences before taking risky actions like walking through the desert and conducting financial investment. But when something emergent happen, people will do whatever they can without considering the results.

tesolchinaUID: 2191404

ssphia  2015-10-27 17:18
дissue61鷳 де ...

https://quip.com/QHMuAkE2NbJ2

tesolchinaUID: 2191404

ssphia  2015-10-27 17:18
дissue61鷳 де ...

https://quip.com/QHMuAkE2NbJ2