2025年GRE《写作》专项训练

2025年GRE《写作》专项训练考试时间：______分钟总分：______分姓名：______写作部分IssueDirections:Thefollowingpromptisbasedontheaccompanyingpassage.Readthepassageandthepromptcarefully.Then,inabriefessayofabout400words,developandsupportyourpointofviewontheissuepresented.Indevelopingandsupportingyourpointofview,youmaydrawuponyourreading,yourownexperience,oryourobservationsoftheworldaroundyou.Thepassage:Inmanyfields,itisbecomingincreasinglyimportantforprofessionalstohaveabroadbaseofknowledgeandskill,ratherthandeepexpertiseinasinglearea.Therapidpaceoftechnologicaladvancementandtheinterconnectednessofglobaleconomiesmeanthatjobsarechangingfasterthaneverbefore.Toremaincompetitive,professionalsmustbeadaptableandversatile,capableoflearningnewskillsandapplyingknowledgefromdiversedisciplinestosolvecomplexproblems.Deepspecialization,whilevaluableincertaincontexts,mayleadtoobscurityandmakeitdifficultforindividualstoadapttonewchallengesoropportunities.Prompt:Doestheincreasingemphasisonbroadknowledgeandversatilityoverdeepspecializationrepresentapositiveornegativedevelopmentforindividualsandsociety?ArgumentDirections:Thefollowingscenariopresentsastatement,whichyouaretoanalyze.Indoingso,focusonthelineofreasoningpresentedandidentifyanyerrorsinreasoning.Inabriefessayofabout400words,evaluatetheargumentandrecommendwhat,ifanything,shouldbedone.Supportyourevaluationwithclearreasoningandevidence.Scenario:ThecitycouncilofLakesideisconsideringaproposaltobanthesaleofsingle-useplasticbagsinallretailstoreswithinthecitylimits.Proponentsofthebanarguethatitisnecessarytoaddressthegrowingproblemofplasticpollutioninlocalwaterwaysandonbeaches.Arecentstudycommissionedbythecityfoundthatplasticwasteaccountsforapproximately30%ofthedebriscollectedalongLakeside'sbeachesannually.Furthermore,thestudynotedthatplasticbagsoftenendupinlocalwaterways,wheretheycanharmwildlife.Theproponentsalsopointoutthatseveralneighboringcitieshavealreadyimplementedsimilarbanswithreportedsuccessinreducingplasticwaste.Therefore,thecitycouncilshouldenactabanonsingle-useplasticbagstoprotecttheenvironmentandpublichealth.EssayforIssue(请在这里写你的Issue作文)EssayforArgument(请在这里写你的Argument作文)试卷答案Issue解析思路：此题要求考生就“日益强调广博知识和技能的重要性相对于单一领域深度专业知识的重要性是利大于弊还是弊大于利”展开论述。考生需明确自己的立场（正面或负面），并构建有说服力的论证。*正面观点解析思路：*论证点1：适应性强-强调在快速变化的时代，广博的知识和技能使个人能更快适应新环境、新工作要求。*论证点2：解决复杂问题-论证跨学科知识有助于应对全球化、技术融合带来的复杂挑战。*论证点3：创新潜力-多领域知识的交叉融合可能激发创新思维，产生新的想法或解决方案。*论证点4：职业发展灵活-拥有广泛技能的个体在职业转型或面对行业变动时更具优势。*需考虑的潜在反驳/复杂性：深度专业知识在某些领域（如基础科学研究、精密工程）仍是必需的；广博可能意味着浅尝辄止。*负面观点解析思路：*论证点1：缺乏深度导致基础薄弱-批评过于强调广博而忽视深度可能导致专业知识不扎实，难以解决核心问题。*论证点2：难以精通-拥抱过多知识领域可能导致精力分散，最终在哪个领域都无法成为专家。*论证点3：专业价值降低-在特定行业或领域内，深度专业知识是获得高阶职位和认可的关键。*论证点4：可能导致“万金油”但无核心竞争力-在就业市场上，过于宽泛的背景可能不如在特定领域有深厚造诣的候选人有竞争力。*需考虑的潜在反驳/复杂性：“T型”人才（既有广度又有深度）是理想模式；某些职业确实需要广度。考生应选择一个明确立场，并选择2-3个最有力的论证点进行深入阐述，可结合实例（个人经历、社会现象、历史事件等）支持观点，并适当提及对立观点以显示思辨能力。Argument解析思路：此题要求考生分析Lakeside市关于禁止销售一次性塑料袋的论证，找出其中的逻辑错误，并提出改进建议。关键在于识别论据与结论之间的薄弱环节。*识别潜在逻辑谬误/分析思路：*首要谬误：统计数据的局限性（样本偏差/范围谬误）-论据中“最近一份由市政府委托的研究”发现塑料垃圾占海滩废弃物的30%。问题在于：1)这份研究是否具有代表性？是全市所有海滩还是特定几个？2)这个比例是否准确反映了所有进入水道的塑料量（包括河流、湖泊等）？3)该数据是否为最新数据？塑料污染状况可能已变化。仅凭海滩数据推断全市水道问题可能过于片面。*其次谬误：类比论证的不可靠性（类比谬误）-论证提到“几个邻近城市已经实施了类似禁令并取得了成功”。问题在于：1)“成功”的定义是什么？是显著减少了塑料污染，还是仅仅减少了销售额？2)邻近城市的具体情况（人口密度、经济结构、环保意识、替代品可用性等）可能与Lakeside市是否相似？如果差异巨大，其经验教训的适用性存疑。*可能存在的其他谬误：*滑坡谬误：禁止塑料袋是否能直接、必然地解决“环境”和“公共健康”问题？可能只解决了部分塑料污染问题，而未解决其他环境或健康问题。*诉诸流行/权威（潜在）：“邻近城市实施”可能带有一定权威性，但成功不等于该做法对所有城市都绝对适用。*忽略成本/替代方案：论证未提及实施禁令可能带来的负面影响（如对低收入群体的影响、小商贩的困难）或探讨是否有其他更有效/成本更低的方法来减少塑料污染（如加强回收、推广可重复使用袋、源头控制等）。*建议：*基于上述识别出的主要逻辑缺陷（特别是研究数据的局限性和类比论证的不可靠性），建议不应仅凭这些理由就贸然做出全面禁止的决定。*建议进行更全面深入的调查分析，例如：收集更广泛的塑料污染数据（涵盖不同水域），评估邻市禁令成功的具体条件和衡量标准，分析禁令对市民、商家可能产生的影响，并比较禁令与其他环保措施的优缺点。*建议市政府在做出最终决定前，组织多方（市民、商家、环保组织、专家学者）进行充分讨论，或先进行小范围试点，以收集更全面的信息和意见。考生需在作文中清晰指出所识别的谬误，详细解释为什么这些谬误削弱了论证的有效性，并基于此提出具体的、有针对性的改进建议。Argument(以下为模拟的Argument作文范文，仅供参考，非标准答案)Theargumentpresentedforbanningsingle-useplasticbagsinLakesidereliesontwomainpoints:alocalstudyindicatingthatplasticwasteconstitutesasignificantportionofbeachdebrisandthesuccessofsimilarbansinneighboringcities.Whilethesepointssuggestaconcernforenvironmentalprotection,theargumentsuffersfromseveralcriticallogicalflawsthatweakenitsconclusion.Firstly,theargument'srelianceonthecity'scommissionedstudyisproblematicduetopotentiallimitationsinthedatacollected.ThestudyfocusessolelyonLakeside'sbeaches,butplasticpollutionextendsfarbeyondcoastalareas,affectingrivers,lakes,andoceanswithinthecitylimitsaswell.Itisentirelypossiblethatthe30%figureaccuratelyreflectsonlytheplasticfoundonthebeachesandsignificantlyunderrepresentsthetotalvolumeofplasticwasteenteringthecity'swaterways.Withoutcomprehensivedataonplasticdebrisinallaquaticenvironments,basingacity-widebanonbeachcleanupstatisticsisasignificantoversightandlikelyinaccuraterepresentationoftheoverallproblem.Theconclusionthatabanisnecessaryto"protecttheenvironment"isthereforequestionablewithoutthisbroadercontext.Secondly,theargument'sappealtothesuccessofbansinneighboringcitiesisbasedonanunreliableanalogy.Whilethepremisementionssuccess,itdoesnotdefinewhatconstitutes"success."Wasitameasurablereductioninplasticpollution,orsimplyareductioninplasticbagsales?Furthermore,theenvironmentalandsocio-economiccontextsofLakesideanditsneighboringcitiesmaydiffersubstantially.Differencesinpopulationdensity,localeconomies,publicawareness,theavailabilityandcostofalternativebagoptions,andexistingwastemanagementinfrastructurecouldallinfluencetheeffectivenessofaban.SimplyobservingsuccessinanothercitydoesnotguaranteethatthesameoutcomewillbeachievedinLakeside,especiallyiftheunderlyingconditionsarenotcomparable.Theargumentfailstoaddressthesecrucialcontextualfactors,makingtheclaimthatLakesideshouldfollowsuitbasedonneighboringexampleshighlyspeculativeandpotentiallymisleading.Inconclusion,theargument'sconclusionthatLakesideshouldenactabanonsingle-useplast