GRE写作的另类思维

GRE写作的另类思维刚开头学写Argument时，总是先学习常见规律错误，什么hasty/overgeneralization,falseanalogy,unwarrantedassumption等等,久而久之,我们一看到argument,就将规律错误套用相应的上述语句.再看下面的模板(源自上海新东方付顺贤讲义,孙远一书中也有相像处),你会觉察中国人几乎每篇习作或多或少都有其影子.

Theauthorconcludesthat…Tosupporttheconclusion,theauthorreasonsthat…Theauthoralsopointsoutthat…However,theargumentisflawedforseveralreasons.Inthefirstplace,theauthorunfairlyassumesthat…however,theauthorfailstosubstantiatethiscrucialassumption.Absentsuchevidence,itisjustlikelythat……Inconclusion,thisargumentisunacceptableasitstands.Tobetterevaluatetheeargument,theauthormust…tostrengthentheargument,theauthorwouldhavetodemonstratethat…

初学的人(包括我自己)都会赞叹多好的句子啊,可当我真正将这些运用到文章这种去时却发觉,全部人都这么写,这不成了八股了吗?

再看看ETS的范文,真是大开眼界,他们的开头与结尾也都很有创意。想想也是每个人看到题目的反响都是不同的，最想说的话也不行能都用一种模式表达。此外，其论述也令人心服口服.然而与付顺贤或孙远的模板恰恰相反的是，大多5，6分的文章都没有在文章中详细指明是何种规律错误（见上文），而是以平实的口吻并且站在决策者（或是CEO或是universitypresident）的角度，剖析，假设，批驳。这种写法的好处在于能激起阅卷人的共鸣。别说他们了，我在读文章时也有同感。（我要是这家公司的头也不会把钱丢在那个工程；我要是住在A镇的话，也不会同意把这块地作为B用；等）详细例子可下载总分值网的36篇ETS公布的范文，这里不再螯述。

有人会反对说，付顺贤在全部写作考试中都得6分，他的指导不会错的。但是，要知道他们的整体写作水平很高，不象我们用了美丽的模板而其他内容与模板的语气用词等格格不入，反而弄巧成拙，显得有片断抄袭倾向。而且与我们竞争的主要对手，美国及其他英语国家的学生，英语造诣更没法比，我们再用字美丽商在花功夫也无济于事。还不如顺应ETS的初衷，在规律错误上有独到见解，提出心悦诚服的理由。这一点，要多学学6分范文。

下面的一篇习作，是我站在文章中决策者的角度，设身处地的查找了几个错误，不知有没有到达预期目标。举例说明：

191ThefollowingisaletterfromaprofessoratXanaduCollegetothecollege”spresident.“Thedevelopmentofanextensivecomputer-basedlong-distancelearningprogramwillenhancethereputationofXanaduCollege.Thisprogramwouldallowmorestudentstoenrollinourcourses,therebyincreasingourincomefromstudenttuition.Traditionalcoursescouldeasilybeadaptedfordistancelearners,aswasshownbytheadaptationoftwotraditionalcoursesforourdistancelearningtrialprojectlastyear.Also,byusingcomputerprogramsandtapedlectures,facultywillhavefewerclassroomobligationsandmoretimetoengageinextensiveresearch,therebyenhancingthereputationofXanadu.“

看完文章后，我信任大家也会列出以下几点错误或更多：

1）建议带有部门利益，各学科教学方法不同

2）试样胜利的部门不能代表全部

3）该工程本身有缺陷：增加本钱，学费增加，学生负担重，可能转学

4）学校的声誉有各个因素组成

然而怎样把上述几点归类，有机结合，且看我的文章：

ThelettertothepresidentofXanaduCollegeisnotsufficientlyconvincingintermsoftheevidencegiven.Consideringthatthesuggestionwasmadebyaprofessorfromparticulardepartment,onemaydoubttherepresentativenessofhisrequest.Isitmerelyaone-sidedargumentintheinterestofhisdepartmentinsteadofallorforthesakeoftheprofessorhimself?

Tocorroboratehisargument,theprofessorciteseasyadaptationofstudentsasevidence,butcanthestudentsinthetrialprojectbelongtothecomputersciencedepartmentwhoismoreadaptedinsoftwareoperating.Giventhathistryoutiswellrepresented,therearemanyotherfactorstodeterminethenecessityofitsextensiontothewholecampus.Thedecisionmakersshouldtakeintoaccountthedisparityamongdepartmentsinteachingmethod.Someisciplinesrequiretimelyinstructionofteacherswhomightimparttechniquesofsketchingforfineartstudentsorrectifythepronunciationoffreshmenstudyingforeignlanguage,forexample.Forthestudentsinthesedepartmentsthataddressalotofview-exchangebetweenfacultyandstudents,thelong-distancelearningprogrammightinhibittheirprogress.Whatmakestheconclusionfarfromcogentliesinthelackoffeedbacksfromstudents,theultimateuseroftheprogram.Theprofessorprovidesnoconcretefiguresindicatingthecausalrelationbetweentheimplementationoftheprogramandhigherenrollmentstogetherwithensuingmoreincome.

It’scommonsensethatnewfacilitiesinevitablyincreaseexpenditure.Thiscostraisingshownintheschool’sbalancesheetwouldbetransferredtonowherebuttothestudents’account,therebyintensifyingtheirburdenoftuition.Whatmakesmaterworse;theremotestudyprojectoftenregardspersonaldesktoporlaptopasprerequisite.Whatifsomelessaffluentstudentscouldnotaffordsucha“luxury”?Willtheycontinuetostayratherthanmovetoacheaperschoolwheretheycouldacquirenolessknowledge?

Anotherpointthattheprofessorstressesisthatthemoreengagementinextensiveresearchseemsrationalizestheprogram.HecontendsthatresearchcouldenhancethereputationofXanadu.However,thingscouldwellgoesagainsthim.Foreonething,whethertheextratimewouldreallybeutilizedtoconductresearchisopentoquestion;foranother,theactualstudyqualityundertheno-respondingteachingmodehasyetbeenprovedtobesuperiortopreviousmethods.Sinceallcoursesmightroutinelybepre-recordedafterinstallingtheprogram,eacherscouldbelessresponsivetojustifyhisteachingrateofprocessaccordingtotudents’performance.

Likewise,studentsmightfindtheirprofessorslessaccessibleastheofficehoursinproportiontoclassroomobligationdecrease.Alltheseconsequencesconsidered,thesuggestedprogramwouldoffsetitspositiveeffect,ifany,andevendebasetheschool’sreputation.Theargumentforlaunchingthenewprogramcouldprovidemoreinformationconcerningthestude